Conservation Framing Devalues Art (?)

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Fri 25 Nov, 2005 10:54 am

Given that new art is being produced at a higher rate than the population is expanding, without some sort of obsoletion built into the system, isn't the art market in danger of being swamped in the future as more works get added without the balanced of the destruction of older works by the ravages of time, UV light, acid contact, etc?

absolute framing · Post by **absolute framing** » Fri 25 Nov, 2005 1:45 pm

Interesting thought......however purchasers of art will all be NIMBY's ( not in my back yard). Maybe you should suggest to your customers you will glue down and knock around 25% of their work, or even 75%.....so the rest can increase in value...Even better, advertise the fact !...there will be a queue at your door......the framer who makes your art (that survives) increase in value !!

Take it further, offer to knock off artists that have produced too much work, an annual cull perhaps!

i dont think you need to worry though, there are allready enough framers out there doing damage, without converting those that DO CARE !

markw · Post by **markw** » Fri 25 Nov, 2005 2:12 pm

A Troll like posting FN!

I would have thought enough people just get fed up with art as the fashion trend changes, they just throw it away. I am often suprised at some of the quite valuable pieces of art I see in local charity shops.

Some art on the other hand will survive, and as we cant predict which one, I would have thought that a safe approach was to always frame to conservation standard any work that has a high initial cost. As framers we dont need to worry about its future value - just its future as an untainted piece of art.

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Sat 26 Nov, 2005 3:09 pm

My question may have been a bit tongue in cheek, but whilst being easily dismissed by the great unwashed, it will have been seriously considered at the highest level by major gallery and museum curators, who already have many more works in storage than they have on display.

markw · Post by **markw** » Sat 26 Nov, 2005 3:20 pm

suprised you had room for your tongue as well as your foot!

Dermot · Post by **Dermot** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 12:08 pm

Framing Norah wrote:My question may have been a bit tongue in cheek, but whilst being easily dismissed by the great unwashed, it will have been seriously considered at the highest level by major gallery and museum curators, who already have many more works in storage than they have on display.

Interesting subject

So what is so new about that analysis nowadays that is causing this supposed devaluation ……and what is your source for this change of attitude….

There has always been or at least there has been for many many many years more art in storage than various galleries and museums can display ….

If Nora has a reputable source for her analysis then of course it is something that needs very careful consideration…..but without knowing the source I cannot give it much creditability or weight….

markw · Post by **markw** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 12:55 pm

Presumably, as I am neither a curator or gallery I fall into the category of the "great unwashed" - which artistically, puts me in good company. Where does FN get her facts from - her argument is based on what? gallerys have always collected more than they display - and the very fact that they select makes a nonsense that all work produced is worth collecting.

If the comments made by FN are meant to question why we go to the effort of framing to a high standard fairly ordinary work - and I am not sure thats what she is saying - then the answer must be that we frame work for the customer - they define the standards - they would also be the ones to take us to task if the work degraded because of the materials we used to frame the work.

Hope FN can step out of the shower and give us an answer based upon fact, not supposition!

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 3:25 pm

While I am happy to be counted among the great unwashed (I thought that would have gone without saying), I cannot in all honesty include myself with the terminally hard of thinking. For example, I do not require 'sources' in order to think for myself.

My thesis is so blindingly obvious that I am amazed that it has provoked anything other than universal agreement.

I'll try to put it another way. Lets imagine a graph which plots the number if art works from each century, for the last twenty or so, that are in the nation's galleries and collections.

Without reference to any sources other than common sense we know that this is a rising graph, and we also know that it will continue to rise. Granted, there may be those who think that we have many more works of art from the first century than we have from the twentieth, but I rather think that the onus would be on them to prove such a notion.

Think, in the centuries to come, more and more works from earlier centuries will have survived. The art market will be awash with older, well preserved, works which didn't make it into the nation's institutional collections.

sarah · Post by **sarah** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 3:48 pm

So what you are saying Norah is that we will have an Art Mountain of sorts.

Hmmm poor framing then could be deemed a form of natural selection, only the most PH balanced will survive.

I also imagine you are having a bit of a joke with us. If you're not shame on you!

markw · Post by **markw** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 4:31 pm

Is this the great unwashed thesis? If so its certainly not blindingly obvious to me. What are you talking about - a vast collective mountain of all art - or that we are preserving current art for individuals. I am afraid that as thesis go its very muddy.

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 4:36 pm

Don't worry about it Mark, it is a difficult concept for some.

Dermot · Post by **Dermot** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 4:43 pm

I asked what sources you are using for your analysis………

There are many ways to interpret data and how that data is analysed can have a very significant impact on the result…….without at least two validated sources for data your analysis is nothing more that an opinion….

Do you have sources for your information or is it just your own conjecture!!!!!

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 5:06 pm

Sorry Dermot,

I didn't mean to confuse you.

Just what is it that you require all these sources for?

Is it:

A. We are producing more artwork now than we used to?

B. Many more works are being preserved by conservation methods than there used to be?

C. The population is expanding?

D. We should not make conjectures based on what we know today?

Dermot · Post by **Dermot** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 5:41 pm

I’m not confused……I’m trying to understand how you have come to your analysis…..and if it has any validity…..

If you don’t wish to expand on your sources for your analysis I can only be left to conclude that you have taken some vague subject matter and used it to support your analysis that art is devaluing……………for financial reasons I keep quite a sharp eye on the value of various forms of investments ……..and nowhere have I seen any sustainable research that suggests that art is in danger of devaluing…….about the only collector range that had a bump in the last 10 years was cars ….and this has now just about fully recovered….

The reason I would like some validated sources is that it will allow me to ascertain whether your suggestion is valid or just pure conjecture on your part.

absolute framing · Post by **absolute framing** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 9:39 pm

interesting, that the premise for "value" of art is monetary.. what about asthetics ? beauty? skill?

the world would be better if we all could afford a masterpice to hang on the wall, rather than a print or copy of the same....imagine, every home as a gallery, full of original paintings! A new and interesting experience in every home we enter.

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Mon 28 Nov, 2005 10:33 pm

I like the cut of your jib Absolute, your cull idea was a gas. It had us all in stitches here. Even the resident 'Artist' was delighted with it.

Of course, you also make a very good point - what is the purpose of art? Its power to inspire and the pleasure that it can give are beyond mere monetary value. I agree 100%.

However.

I had a quick Google (www.google.com - great for searching for stuff on the Internet), just to see if my theory had any legs.

First out of the box: - Royal Academy of Arts, no less.
http://www.ramagazine.org.uk/index.php?pid=135

“It is a paradox of art collections that the more they grow, the less of their works can be shown. This was the problem that faced the Emanuel Hoffmann Foundation in Basel, one of the world’s pre-eminent collections of modern and contemporary art. Founded in 1933, its goal has always been to collect the best art of its time. Not surprisingly, it was drowning in art”

‘We were worried because we couldn’t see what was happening to works packed away. They could have been disintegrating in crates and we wouldn’t have known,’ explains Schaulager director Fran Fischer.

In Australia:-
http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/techpapers/pl ... ends2.html
The most significant threat to the storage environments comes from the inadequacy of storage space. A very significant proportion (40%) of institutions reported a serious to critical shortage of storage space with 18% reporting critical shortages….
… When the above figures are broken down into type of institution an important trend emerges. 68% of museums report a serious to critical shortage of storage space. Museums represented 55% of all institutions reporting a serious to critical storage problem and 58% of all institutions with a critical storage problem. Given that museums also hold 52% of collections in State, Federal and Territory institutions, this represents a significant problem.

http://www.armidale.local-e.nsw.gov.au/ ... 10491.html
“However, NERAM like most major galleries had a storage problem which needed to be resolved.”

In Wales
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n6134734
"For instance, in 1996 seventy per cent of storage space was in a poor condition. The Welsh Assembly recently approved an additional 3.5 million [pounds sterling] funding to help resolve the storage problem."

In Philadelphia
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:Ohc ... isis&hl=en
Not only are extremely valuable historicalartifacts in jeopardy, but further growth of important collections isseverely hampered. The storage crisis has begun to compromise theability of many institutions to fulfill their missions.

Sorry I didn't have enough time to spare, and I know that my search engine skills are very limited, but I'm sure that anyone with a smidgen of search engine savvy could do much better.

I will leave it to others to come up with the balancing references to support the notion that there is no storage crisis, and it is not going to get any worse. Lets see how many 'sources' support the opposite view to mine.

markw · Post by **markw** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 8:57 am

FN Your research clearly shows that galleries have limited and sometimes inadequate space. It doesn’t correspond that the art market is being swamped. We live in an affluent society that hasn’t even started to embrace the possibilities of having good quality original art on its walls. If your argument was that we are being exposed to an ever increasing level of poor quality art then I would agree - the market itself is reflecting that by a severe downturn in business from some of the big players.

The Market for good quality original and truly creative works is bigger than the supply - the problem being that the supply of this level of art, in my experience, is very small with many artists coming out of art school with little commercial potential. This theory can be backed up by looking at the prices of work sold - I have seen little downturn in the price of works sold in galleries or at auction - and at the end of the day these are the factors that truly reflect the state of the art market - not the museums and galleries that only reflect a rather rarefied world of intellectual art.

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Tue 29 Nov, 2005 1:32 pm

Thanks Mark, I was beginning to think that I was in danger of being right by default since no one was prepared to put up a cogent opposing argument. Being a framer with little contact with the real art world, my idea is based solely on conjecture and I am more than willing to be convinced that I am wrong by those who actually know that scene, and how it really works.

So, for the sake of this discussion, lets say that presently there is no storage crisis, and that the marketplace is not awash with good quality art works. Is it not possible that at some point in the future, as more and more works are being well preserved, the body of work available to the market will not only contain the works of the current generation, but also the works of all the preceding generations dating back to the time when conservation framing stepped out of the museum?

markw · Post by **markw** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 9:37 am

FN I wonder how you define art in this century. When I went to art school many years ago, you didn’t have much there apart from Fine art - Graphics and Ceramics. My eldest daughter now attends the same Art school - She's doing time based media - a subject that seems to cover almost everything but Fine Art. She would say that a lot of what they produce is art and I would agree.

Collectable Art has an equally broadening horizon - who in the last century would have classified Tracey Emins bed as art? Who in the next will still think it is?

To conclude my ramblings and answer you question I would say that we are actually (in the UK) producing less conventionally collectable art than we were say 100 years ago - we do produce more art but we have huge needs for art - more TV - Film - publications - even with an affluent population more walls to decorate with run of the mill prints. The gems will still hopefully be sought after, and I suspect equally as rare as they have ever been. The potential mountains of art will, as time goes by be re classified and re evaluated.

Framing Norah · Post by **Framing Norah** » Wed 30 Nov, 2005 11:40 am

Mark, I wouldn't know how to begin to define art. In my small world, and for the purposes of this discussion, I was only considering objects that could be framed.

How naive!

The problem will be much worse than I was originally predicting, of course, when you add to the extra works which will be available in the future due to improved conservation awareness, framed art will come under increasing competition with other stuff which is being also considered as art. Thanks for pointing that one out.