Backing Board

[Steve N]

"If so, art dealers are all now out of jobs."


Is that a good or bad idea

I have one that comes in and complains about my range of frames, I don't know why he stills keeps coming in next time he comes and says that, I'm going to show him the door

[Jamesnkr]

No art dealers, no art, no work for framers...

[Rainbow]

Isn't this getting a little out of proportion? All that's happened is that some pictures that are 70 years old have been copied, enhanced and framed. The originals are safely tucked away from the risk of further damage from light etc. The customer is happy, the framer has got 8 jobs instead of only one, plus possibly additional income from copying and enhancing. It's a pity we can't all share our different practices without being judged to offer an inferior service by others who work differently, which is how it comes across to me - and not for the first time either.

[prospero]

.......next time he comes and says that, I'm going to show him the door

Yep. Chop the door up and make it into a frame.

[Chris2103]

Well written Rainbow

[vintage frames]

I don't believe anyone is judging general work practices here. This is more an argument for better aesthetic values, or good taste if you will. There is always a lot to learn in life and especially in picture framing where the framer is not only supplying a skilled service, but is often seen as a bridge over murky waters of popular taste and towards a more mature appreciation of art and interiors.
I started out as an artistic imbecile with no appreciation of "the old", but over the years I've always tried to learn and discover a better way of seeing things. Whether one should encourage a customer to only frame a copy of their original art-work seems to me to belong in the some category as keeping on the plastic covers on a new sofa. I'm sorry but preserving fragile art from the danger of having it framed is nonsense. What are art museums for?
We should be free to discuss and criticize more on matters of taste.

[MikeSwannick]

No art dealers, no art, no work for framers...

Whether you agree with the 'high quality reproduction & archive' model or not, there will always need to be source material. So, yes, there will always be art dealers.

[Jamesnkr]

Whether you agree with the 'high quality reproduction & archive' model or not,

People can do what they like and if they make money then good luck to them! I certainly wouldn't recommend framing newspapers.

But these items have survived for 70 years in frames, so that's part of their character. Why do people go to a museum or art gallery rather than looking at an online photograph? It's because there's something about a real artefact that a copy of it doesn't have. That's its soul. That's what makes it art. What gives it life.

[MikeSwannick]

"People can do what they like and if they make money then good luck to them! I certainly wouldn't recommend framing newspapers. "

In that case, if a customer wanted a newspaper framed what would your advice be? Make a high quality copy, frame that and archive the original maybe?

I've noticed the occasional comment on this forum where the framer has, in my opinion, overstepped their remit. Customers my ask our opinion and seek guidance about mouldings, mounts, glass etc etc but we (collectively) are NOT the arbiters of taste (within the bounds of decency). If somebody brings something to me that's a little 'left field' and are willing to pay for what they want and understand the potential pitfalls, then so be it and I consider the weird stuff a challenge. Art is very subjective. Who'd have thought an unmade bed and a shark in formaldehyde would have set the art world alight?

My apologies to the original poster for taking this thread off track. I advocate giving the paying customer all the available options and letting them make the choice, including the copy/archive option.

[Jamesnkr]

In that case, if a customer wanted a newspaper framed what would your advice be? Make a high quality copy, frame that and archive the original maybe?

If anybody were ever to come to me to ask me to frame a newspaper (I can 100% guarantee they won't...), I should tell them that a newspaper is not suitable for framing as the paper will deteriorate rapidly. Everybody knows what happens when you leave a newspaper in the sun, it wouldn't be a surprise to them. So I'd frame it and let it deteriorate.

So why would somebody want a newspaper framing? Is it because of the newspaper itself, or what it says. It's downstairs loo stuff, isn't it. Here is a picture of me in The Times receiving my MBE; here's a picture of The Queen, and my daughter is just in the shot. So it's ephemeral, it means something to the individual but has no intrinsic value. So frame it and let it rot and brown, at which point it will be relegated to the cupboard under the stairs and will eventually be binned. Who cares?!

Or maybe a collector has bought a newspaper announcing the end of WW2 and paid a fortune for it (I've no idea?!) and want it framing. What value a photocopy of the front page? They didn't buy it to inform. You're not intended to read it. So it's not about the words on the page. So what IS it about? It's about that bit of history; a photocopy has nothing to do with history, you might as well stick a textbook to the wall. It's about that tangible item; a newspaper needs to look like a newspaper, with thickness and texture, otherwise it's just a photocopy. If you're going to frame a photocopy, what's the point in having bought it in the first place? ANYbody could have a photocopy for 10p. If they're not happy with the inevitable decay I'd suggest they find a different way to keep it and be able to show it to interested people; in a drawer; in a display case with a velvet cover - like in a museum.

And if they wanted a photocopy framing? I'd despise them and take their money.

[233ART]

What a weird post...

[MikeSwannick]

Let's put the word 'photocopy' to bed. The conversation isn't about a 10p photocopy, it's about a high quality reproduction that will not be obvious under the scrutiny of the casual observer. Chalk and cheese.

I repeat my previous assertion that our collective involvement is up to and stops at professional opinion about the framing request. When a customer is made aware of all the facts, and I dispute none of what you assert about the rapid deterioration of low quality paper, if they still want to go ahead then our input stops there, unless you are specifically asked to comment upon an individuals taste.

I can't believe you would be so judgmental about a paying customer whose only 'crime' is to have a different aesthetic opinion to you, especially when we have no right to even know or demand justification for that opinion.

And if they wanted a photocopy framing? I'd despise them and take their money.

I guess in your own words you've identified the core difference between you and I

[Rainbow]

@ vintage frames - I’m afraid I’m not convinced by what you’ve said, particularly as your own original comment in this thread contributed nothing to a discussion about aesthetics. And I don’t think Mrs Blogg’s environmental conditions can be compared with those of art museum. What are prints and posters if not copies? All the OP has done is make a print of an original and in other contexts, prints are big business. As a framer, albeit a very lowly one, I see my job as providing a service. I enjoy seeing the different tastes of my customers as far as art is concerned, and I guide them towards mounts and frames which suit the art, not simply the ones which I consider to be “in good taste”, whatever that is. For me, it’s about respecting the fact that we all have different tastes (and working practices, business models etc), and vive la différence, it would be very dull if we were all the same.

What a weird post...

Indeed! It's rather difficult to engage with it, being so far apart in terms of attitude to customers and whatever work they want framing!

[Steve N]

Well said Mr Rainbow

[vintage frames]

Yes Rainbow, perhaps my last post was a bit of a ramble. Sometimes it's hard to say what's going on in the brain.
My first post was my slight alarm that the framer was horrified to find an original pine backing board inside his customers frame. He didn't seem to place any value in it, so I thought it would be good to advise that he replaces the board when finished with his other work and so retain the antique integrity of the frame.
When it came to the business of framing only a copy of the original artwork, I'm with James here in my disagreement. What I did find frustrating was that there seemed to be no understanding of the argument. And that goes back to my thinking that a professional framer would be able to re-assure it's customer on the safety of framing the original and hint towards what is best practice in taste.
I know a lot of people will say they remain neutral on taste and will always do what the customer wants, but it's also important to have the knowledge and experience of good taste and be able to advise and nudge the customer towards a better way of regarding art.

[Jamesnkr]

What a weird post...

What an even weirder post in that it suggests that there are people working in the art world who don't see much difference - if any - between an original piece of art, an original copy of it (an original print or an original poster), and a photographic copy (I'm not trying to offend you, apologies if you think I've trying to equate your high quality copies with those made on a photocopier, I'm not).

The third one isn't original art. It's a picture of original art. Here's an illustration that shows the difference.

This is an original, and is worth over £20,000:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 0-000.html

This is a modern reproduction, costs £8 and is worth £0:

https://www.kingandmcgaw.com/prints/ano ... 1::media:0

I guess in your own words you've identified the core difference between you and I

"The customer is always right" is not to be read literally. Instead it means "The customer should always be given what he wants (if legal, possible etc.) but there's no need for you to approve of his decision." If somebody turned up with a delicate Georgian watercolour and wanted it in a bright orange mount with a fluorescent yellow frame I think you'd try to guide them away from that choice, wouldn't you? Why would this be different?

[prospero]

A man was setting a mousetrap but didn't have any cheese.

Instead he cut out a picture of a piece of cheese from a magazine and baited the trap with that.

The next day he checked the trap and the cheese picture was gone.

In it's place was a picture of a mouse.

[Rainbow]

I'm not sure what you're saying, James. It sounds like you're saying that if someone likes a picture for the message it conveys - whether that's an image or text - that you disapprove of someone framing a print and have the pleasure of seeing that message on their wall if the original is unavailable or unaffordable - is that really what you're saying?

[Jamesnkr]

In no sense. I'm saying that if you have the original because you can afford it and it is available, why would you want a copy (unless it really is too valuable and you've lent it to the Louvre or it's in the bank).

If you can't afford it, or it's not available, then hang a picture of some artwork if you want to. Do what you like. But I don't consider it to be art; I consider it to be a picture of art.

[MikeSwannick]

If somebody turned up with a delicate Georgian watercolour and wanted it in a bright orange mount with a fluorescent yellow frame I think you'd try to guide them away from that choice, wouldn't you? Why would this be different?

Their choice is, literally, none of my concern.