Guild Guild Framers Committee reply to points raised on TFF

[Mary Evans]

There are a couple of points which have recently been raised on TFF which were discussed at the Framers Committee meeting this week.

1. Do we need Five Levels of Framing? There have been suggestions that the bottom two levels (Budget and Minimum) are irrelevant, and that they should at least be combined into only one level. Several points were raised at our meeting:
a) The levels are only guidance; they are not compulsory except when taking the GCF exam or if there is a label on the back saying the work is done to a specific Guild level.
b) While many good framers may only work to Commended Level or above, unless a framer is going to turn work away surely we all come across the occasional customer who needs something of little or no value framed as inexpensively as possible and/or for short-term use?
c) Guild Minimum Level framing requires a blemish-free frame, cleanly cut windowmount (if used) and accurately cut frame mitres which should be glued and pinned. We felt that even this lowest level is significantly better than much framing seen in some retail outlets.
d) One committee member reported that some years ago he was at a Guild meeting where this point was raised. Many framers present were working to at least Commended Level and they were keen to keep the five levels because this made Commended the middle and Conservation the second-highest out of five, rather than Commended being third out of four levels, which psychologically did not look as good.
We felt point the last point was very relevant to customer perception, and that framers using the levels as a marketing tool would prefer the Five Levels to remain.

2. Does the GCF logo need to change so it can be used by non-members? We agreed that it would be preferable to have a GCF sticker which does not incorporate the Guild logo, so that it could be used by all GCFs. This will obviously require some expenditure so is unlikely to happen immediately, but we will put the suggestion forward to the Court.

Looking forward to perhaps seeing some of you at the TFF event in Stratford tomorrow.
Mary Evans

[Not your average framer]

We felt that even this lowest level is significantly better than much framing seen in some retail outlets.
Mary Evans

Hi Mary,

I hope that this will be seen as a constructive / helpful point and not in any way disrespectful.

It is only my own opinion, but has anyone at the guild ever had a PR or marketing professional look at the advantages and disadvantages of this position, the lack of distinctiveness of the bottom two standards from the junk end of the market and it's likely impact upon membership numbers from independant framers?

I suspect that more framers are likely to want to join an organisation which is seeking to more clearly distinguish it's self and it's members from a position of excellence and that dropping one or both of the bottom levels of the FATG framing standards may help to promote the guild to framers who are not currently guild members.

Mark Lacey (The Dartmoor Gallery)

[Framerpicture]

The lack of distinction between qualified framers and those who have bought the right to display the logo undermines the industry as a whole.
I would have thought it was really important to allow GCF's to display there qualifications regardless if they are a member of the guild or not.

Anybody with two trade refrences can get guild membership and frame however they wish.


If the qualified framer was able to display a relevant logo as to his skill and training the customer would be assured that the framer could choose the right level of framing using the right materials for their item.This would give a great deal of customer confidence if backed up by a PR campaign by the Guild for the commended framer logo

This would then encourage people to be members and train and give the industry a much more proffesional status.

[Nigel Nobody]

d) One committee member reported that some years ago he was at a Guild meeting where this point was raised. Many framers present were working to at least Commended Level and they were keen to keep the five levels because this made Commended the middle and Conservation the second-highest out of five, rather than Commended being third out of four levels, which psychologically did not look as good.
We felt point the last point was very relevant to customer perception, and that framers using the levels as a marketing tool would prefer the Five Levels to remain.

Playing devils advocate here:
This could also be considered as gilding the lily or pulling the wool over the public's eyes, by some.

I've always wondered what the purpose of the bottom two levels is? I would have thought having the commended level as the base level for members to strive for would have been great. Having all members working to that level would be awesome. The other two just seem like fluff to me.

Mary,
Could you explain the 'Conservation' and the 'Museum' levels, please? I'm not sure I understand the difference. Conservation framing is conservation framing - top materials, top level mounting techniques etc. I don't know what else can be added to make another separate level above that? I'm asking because I'm interested. There is no intention to be critical. Just trying to understand!

2. Does the GCF logo need to change so it can be used by non-members? We agreed that it would be preferable to have a GCF sticker which does not incorporate the Guild logo, so that it could be used by all GCFs. This will obviously require some expenditure so is unlikely to happen immediately, but we will put the suggestion forward to the Court.

I wonder why the logo needs to be changed? Is the GCF not awarded by the FATG to members and non-members who pay to take the exam?

Looking forward to perhaps seeing some of you at the TFF event in Stratford tomorrow.
Mary Evans

I would have loved to have been able to come but it was just to far. I hope you all had a great time at the event.

[Roboframer]

Could you explain the 'Conservation' and the 'Museum' levels, please? I'm not sure I understand the difference.

Conservation level, amongst other requirements 'recommends' UV filtering glass, but it's not a requirement. So, in my book, NOT conservation quality framing.

Museum level requires 'Cotton Museum' mount board and glass with a 'high level' of UV filtering. They won't give a % value.

I have two levels of framing, two levels of mount board quality (although I only use one) two levels of glass and two levels of all other materials & methods....

Conservation and .....

Non Conservation.

K.I.S.S. !

[prospero]

One thing strikes me about these 'levels'. Do they take into account the nature of the art being framed? Something that is generally completely overlooked.

Robo's comment on glass set me thinking.....

Not all art is a piece of paper. Supposing you had to frame a piece of art that was totally impervious to the effects of UV light. Could be an engraved copper plate or even a piece of etched glass.
Putting UV glass on it would raise the framing to 'Museum' level. But in this case the UV protection of museum glass would be unnecessary. It would be a waste of money. OK, the AR qualities would enhance the framing, but that's purely aesthetic. Nothing to do with conservation.

Same with MDF. Some framers (you know who you are. ) class it as the work of the devil. Yet I have seen and framed lots of oils done on MDF panels. Some valued at many 1000s of £s. I've framed drawings done on std mountboard or just plain corrugated board. Nothing I can do to alter the basic fabric of the art. Using more refined and expensive material in the frame isn't going to alter the fact that the art itself carries the seeds of it's own eventual destruction

Point 1: Surely a great part of the framers skill is to have the ability to decide just what is required for a particular piece in order the preserve it. You can't apply blanket 'rules' that apply to everything.

Point2: The 'craftmanship' and 'conservation' aspects of a frame aren't related. You could have a tatty-looking frame with dings and gappy mitres, breadknife bevels and a design that is absolutely repulsive, but with all the archival requirements well covered. Then again you could have a suberbly made and stunning looking frame where the art has been stuck down with duct tape.
Therefore there should be separate levels for craftsmanship and archival integrity.

[Nigel Nobody]

Conservation and .....

Non Conservation.

K.I.S.S. !

I agree 100%. It is or it isn't conservation quality!

[Nigel Nobody]

One thing strikes me about these 'levels'. Do they take into account the nature of the art being framed? Something that is generally completely overlooked.

Robo's comment on glass set me thinking.....

Not all art is a piece of paper. Supposing you had to frame a piece of art that was totally impervious to the effects of UV light.

Prospero,
You are right, not all art is on paper. Art can be on many mediums and a lot of those mediums have built in acidic problems and formaldehyde problems (MDF).
As responsible framers we should know how to do conservation framing (of as many types of art as possible) so that we can provide that for customers who want to open their wallets to that extent.

I wonder how many framers are qualified to determine whether a piece of art is impervious to the effects of light?

The issue here is setting a standard for conservation framing. PPFA has a standard. It's either conservation or it's not. In that standard there are specifications for mounting different types of art, but the spec for matboards, backing board and glazing is the same throughout.

FATG has a number of standards, some of which I don't understand the need for.

[JohnMcafee]

Well said Prospero.

You have illustrated yet again that when it comes to framing, applying intelligence to your work is infinitely superior to blindly following a set of "rules".

[Graysalchemy]

Same with MDF. Some framers (you know who you are. ) class it as the work of the devil. Yet I have seen and framed lots of oils done on MDF panels. Some valued at many 1000s of £s. I've framed drawings done on std mountboard or just plain corrugated board. Nothing I can do to alter the basic fabric of the art. Using more refined and expensive material in the frame isn't going to alter the fact that the art itself carries the seeds of it's own eventual destruction

This is very true we are expected to frame something to a standard which will protect the artwork from the environment for the customer when in actual fact the time bomb was started as soon as the artist picked up his brush. I have a number of artists who's work sells for £1000's of pounds and are painted onto mdf and paper of dubious nature (lining paper). As the Fine Art Trade Guild perhaps you should also be educating galleries, artists and their agents about the pitfalls of unsuitable materials both paint and grounds.

I must thank the Guild Framers committee for answering these points, however they seem to have completely missed the point that a lot of us were making in the thread 'What will the GCF qualification get me?' which was how does the Guild Police its own qualification in order to maintain standards. It is obviously clear that the guild has no means or intention to actually maintain its standards of the GCF exam, but is willing to promote this qualification as a sign of a superior framer to the general public.

With the guild not having the funds to even design a new logo I doubt they will ever be able to afford a Continuing Professional Development program in order to police their GCF unlike the PPFA which appears to have the means to maintain standards of its CPF and the continuing professional development of its recipients.

[Nigel Nobody]

With the guild not having the funds to even design a new logo I doubt they will ever be able to afford a Continuing Professional Development program in order to police their GCF unlike the PPFA which appears to have the means to maintain standards of its CPF and the continuing professional development of its recipients.

Your absolutely right, PPFA does have an ongoing maintenance program for it's certification.

I'm not sure that any organisation can police what framers do or would even want to. No organization has enough funding to do it and it would be impractical, because as Prospero and John have pointed out, framers have to apply some intelligence to what they do, and the customer always has the final say anyway. Therefore most framers do not do conservation framing on every job that comes in and some may do none due to factors like location, customer type, etc.

Not everyone will participate in certification. People who have taken the CPF exam have done it for their own reasons, including it being an educational experience. Also, in order to promote to their own customers and potential customers that they have a certain level of knowledge.
If those reasons are not important to a framer, then they just aren't interested and won't participate.

[Graysalchemy]

[
I'm not sure that any organisation can police what framers do or would even want to. No organization has enough funding to do it and it would be impractical, because as Prospero and John have pointed out, framers have to apply some intelligence to what they do, and the customer always has the final say anyway. Therefore most framers do not do conservation framing on every job that comes in and some may do none due to factors like location, customer type, etc.

I understand what you are saying but my original argument goes back to reframing a picture which was originally framed by a GCF, where the artwork had been attached in the frame with masking tape. I think if I was involved in the guild I would want this sort of prtactice eradicated.

[Framerpicture]

Point 1: Surely a great part of the framers skill is to have the ability to decide just what is required for a particular piece in order the preserve it. You can't apply blanket 'rules' that apply to everything.

Point2: The 'craftmanship' and 'conservation' aspects of a frame aren't related. You could have a tatty-looking frame with dings and gappy mitres, breadknife bevels and a design that is absolutely repulsive, but with all the archival requirements well covered. Then again you could have a suberbly made and stunning looking frame where the art has been stuck down with duct tape.
Therefore there should be separate levels for craftsmanship and archival integrity.

This is what I was trying to say but you put it far more eloquently!

Train the framer to know the right practices and materials to be used for the specific piece of work.
Although the Guild coudln't police this they could perhaps offer ongoing training and a mentoring service so if a framer didn't know they could ask, alternatively they could look on this forum!
Personally I won't be joining the Guild again until it makes more of an effort to make the public aware of what they can expect from a qualified framer.

[Nigel Nobody]

Personally I won't be joining the Guild again until it makes more of an effort to make the public aware of what they can expect from a qualified framer.

How would you propose they do this?
How would you propose they raise enough funds to do this?

[Graysalchemy]

By making the GCF dependent on a yearly membership you would be able to fund both marketing of the qualification and this would also allow continual professional develpement .

I think if you want continued commendation from the guild of your services, you should pay for the privelidge and also prove you worthiness of the commendation. That way you will have continued support of the guild and a credible professional qualification with substance.

[Nigel Nobody]

I wonder how many framers would be willing or able to pay an annual subscription that was large enough to promote/advertise to the public to make them aware?

Would 100,000 quid be enough? Would 500,000 be enough to promote/advertise all over UK? I don't think so!

What would the annual subscription need to be to cover that? How many framers would join if the annual fee was just doubled. How many would join if it was ten or 20 times as much as it it now?

[Roboframer]

It's off on a tangent again, this isn't about the performance of GCFs after they have passed the test, that's been done - why not just bump the last thread discussing this (which I think you'll find was also a thread that went to it off topic)

Back to one of the original points, these 5 levels of framing.... some say, (and I've asked opinions on this a couple of times and got little or no response) that cotton boards provide no more protection than the best conservation boards made from woodpulp - i.e. pure alpha cellulose.
Cotton boards are also alpha cellulose ... alpha cellulose is alpha cellulose, but the wood version takes longer to process.

If we/the FATG believed this, it would write off museum level (as long as UV glass and alpha cellulose board was a requirement of conservation level framing) and museum quality mount board.

I would say though, that the smallprint should advise that if in doubt, maybe due to bewildering technical spec or lack of technical spec, to opt for cotton, unless the FATG were willing to list, manufacturer by manufacturer, the boards that complied. They don't and they won't and the result is that the manufacturers/suppliers have listed their boards under the FATG levels and we have ended up with some very average boards listed alongside some very high spec boards under the same heading of 'conservation'.

CYA!

But then there's Nielsen-Bainbridge artcare boards, which come in wood alpha cellulose (alphamat) AND cotton alpha cellulose (alpharag) and ACTIVELY protect, unlike the best of the rest, which protect by doing nothing at all bar staying in their original condition for a long time, which the artcare boards do anyway. If there should be a level above 'conservation' (and I don't think there should) then it should be 'active conservation' - but then it would be exclusive to a manufacturer and the FATG won't be having that - not that I blame them, but the bottom line is, at the end of the day when all's said and done ..... it would be true!

So, what are the options the FATG are giving us, best for the artwork we get to frame, or best without upsetting any of the hands that feed them?

.....when it comes to framing, applying intelligence to your work is infinitely superior to blindly following a set of "rules".

AMEN!

[stcstc]

excuse my ignorance robo

But how do these board actively protect, i need to go do some reading. but this caught my attention

[Roboframer]

With 'microchambers' and 'zeolites' that trap airborne pollutants and turn them in to harmless salts. Nielsen-Bainbridge have the technology patented, so, until that patent expires, no-one can match.

Plenty of reading - e.g. - http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn ... 8-106.html

And if you check any of NB's board specifiers there's no mention of the FATG levels, they walked out on them during the setting of these standards, which was a LONG time ago.

[Framerpicture]

How would you propose they do this?
How would you propose they raise enough funds to do this?

I not suggesting paying for expensive advertising but as the guild employ journalists to write their own magazine I sure relevant periodicals/ websites would be happy to take good copy that could be informative to the standards they could expect from a qualified framer .

The Guild charges a minimum of £348.20 to join and the annual subscrition is £221.00+ vat When I last looked (although i haven't looked recently and i belive membership has fallen in the last couple of years) they had about a 1000 members so they have a small budget to play with.