1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Archival mounting of a canvas on board

Discussion in 'The Grumble' started by Robert Montgomery, Nov 13, 2009.

  1. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I never referred to any overcoating product or process as poop, s__t, or other reference to excrement and I resent your saying so.
     
  2. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    Hm many of us got into framing as an extention from our art careers. I became an artist after framing for a few years. Even those that don't "do" art used to make a great deal of money "dealing" in art.

    We are told daily how to frame pictures by know-it-all-artist. Is hardly an insult anymore. It's more comical than insulting.

    I would be offended if a framer (being ignorant about art) told you how to run your business. I've not seen that here.

    I hope you've gotten the answer you were seeking. Did you ask the "fine art" group how they sell canvases? Did anybody suggest gluing them to some glorified cardboard? That is what you're leaning toward isn't it? I grew up in an art gallery and owned a shop for almost 6 years. I've never recieved a stupid package like that from a publisher yet. Who knows you may on the cutting edge of something new? Lemme know how that works out for ya.
     
  3. framerbob

    framerbob CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    he can dish it, but he sure cant take it!
     
  4. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    ...and yet still no website link.

    Come on, don't start being shy now, show us what you do.
     
  5. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    You misinterpreted what I wrote, J. I wrote "550 to 1,100 total, in two three, or four sizes". I didn't write "1,100 x 2, 3 or 4". What I meant was that the total number of prints in my editions ranges from roughly 550 to 1,100, including all of the two, three or four sizes.

    If the prints are extremely similar to one another, then they're not monoprints.

    Opinions vary wildly about what the maximum number of prints that editions need to be limited to, to qualify as limited editions. Just as with degrees of image permanence (or any other topic you can think of) there is a wide range of opinions about this.

    Generally, however, I go by the middle-of-the-road standard, which is that editions of about 500 to 1,000 are acceptable. Some feel that the number should be 350 max, but on the top side, the more liberal view is that 1,000 to 2,000 or more is okay.

    There are no state or provincial laws about the maximum number of prints that may be in a print edition for it to qualify as a limited edition.

    Robert
     
  6. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    __________________
    "The greatest tragedy of mankind is people going through life with sight, but no vision."

    - Helen Keller

    Hey, Tom, why the nasty put-down?

    I'm one of the most famous artists in my city and province. I've got a fan base that's growing every day. My art has been seen by millions of people. Collectors in at least 18 countries have collected my art. I'm getting 60,000 hits per year on my Web site. I'm a leader among artists. I've even been selected informally by a local frame shop/gallery as one of the top two fine artists in my province!

    I could go on and on, but you get the point and I don't want to come across as conceited. Buy my point is: Who the #### are you to tell me I have 'no vision'? You don't even know who I am, so why make such an assinine and hostile assumption and insult?!:nuts::fire::shutup:

    Robert
     
  7. JFeig

    JFeig SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I accept you clarification of the quantity of prints. That is an acceptable quantity.


    However, my reference to industry standards and state statutes was not directed to quantities, but to the art being completed in one cycle of whatever printing process used. Second batches are quite often considered either "states" or "restrikes".
     
  8. RParrish

    RParrish PFG, Picture Framing God

  9. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    So please explain what's not archival about this scenario:

    • my Epson 7600 printer
    • laminating Epson canvas with Premier Art's Eco Print Shield (roll-on)
    * gluing the canvas with Frank's Fabric glue
    * to Kraft-colored three-sixteenths-inch-thick brown gatorboard
    • and perhaps applying volara to the rabbets, as Rob suggested. (Don't know anything about volara yet.)

    Who's that?

    Robert
     
  10. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    I did not bring this discussion to this public forum. Just as with the coating controversy, we got side-tracked because somebody (or somebodies) criticized me for allegedly doing something wrong. The discussion was supposed to be about how to archivally mount a canvas giclee onto a board, but people keep going onto tangents.

    My credentials are exemplary. And besides that, how do you know what my price point is?

    You're insulting me again and making more assumptions. You sure make a lot of false assumptions!

    How do you know I charge five times as much as you do? My giclees are the lowest-priced giclees in town (at least in the class that they're in, which is the high-end, quality, archival giclees on paper) and I've got at least one gallerist who will vouch for me on that. [/QUOTE]

    The traditional rules no longer apply. The times have changed.

    Fortunately, digital printing has taken the strait-jacket off of art publishing. It's liberated artists and put publishing into the hands of those who should be in control: us artists.

    We (and our customers) are no longer shackled by being restricted to only one image size.

    The time has come to wipe away those stupid, rigid, old standards.

    The reason that publishers didn't publish images in different sizes in the past was because the technology didn't make it feasible.

    Why should I publish only in one size when some customers want small, others want medium, some want large and others want extra large?

    You're being hypocritical: This would be like customers going to a framer and asking for picture frames in four sizes, and you saying, "Sorry, I only sell one size". Why should you limit your sales and frustrate the customers by being so inflexible?

    Your standards are archaic and thank digital technology, they are falling by the wayside.

    Editions can still be limited, as I limit mine, to reasonable numbers, by capping the total number of prints available. My average total number is about 825.

    :soapbox::
    An edition of 825 is extremely limited, given the fact that there are several hundred million potential buyers of limited edition giclees. If movie-makers made movies available in a tiny edition of 825, if musicians made only 825 copies of each song available, and if authors restricted the number of books available to only 825 per title, they would all quickly go broke. It's high time that the discrimination against fine artists be ended. Why should an edition of 825 or 1,100 or even 5,000 be regarded as excessive? Even editions of 5,000 movies, songs or books would limit the incomes of movie-makers, musicians and authors to such a degree that they'd probably all go broke. This is one of my pet peeves and I try whenever feasible to educate people about this discrimination that we fine artists face, which our counterparts in all of the other creative sectors are for some strange reason are exempt from. I mean, how many limited edition movies, songs and books do you know of? Even dance performances and plays, which are supposed to for a limited audience, run until the audience has dwindled and the years later it comes back and they keep bringing it back until the market has been milked as much as possible. The constraints put onto visual artists is one of the reasons we are at the bottom of the income levels of all of the creative workers, and the creative workers as a whole have among the lowest incomes of society. So our incomes are at the lowest of the low, in general.

    Robert
     
  11. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Blackcat wrote: "....which wouldn't relate to modern digitial prints where numerous copies can be made with relative ease, but if you don't like the system then don't use it."

    And there are ignorant know-it-alls who claim that being a Webmaster is easy. But they've never made any serious money by being a Webmaster, and have no professional experience as a Webmaster. I've encountered those annoying jerks, too.

    And I've also encountered clueless people who say, "I can be a professional photographer. Anybody can do that". But they've never made any real money from it (probably none at all).

    And there are also ignorant know-it-alls who claim that picture framing is easy. They complain about over-priced framing and claim that they can frame their own art and stretch their own canvasses, even though they have no experience at it. I'm sure you know how insulting that is, when you get those ignoramuses as customers.

    Now, Blackcat, you're being similarly ignorant and insulting by claiming that being a digital, giclee artist is "relatively easy". Shame on you, for not respecting the professionalism of other professionals.

    Blackcat, you haven't a clue of what's involved in being a digital reproduction artist by claiming that it's 'relatively easy'. How much money have you made from your giclees? Don't knock it if you don't know what's involved. It's twice as hard as being a traditional artist, because I have had to learn the traditional techniques as well and the digital realm. I've had to struggle for many years to get to the level of success that I have now, and it never becomes easy.

    Some of my peers envy me because I'm locally famous as an artist. They have no idea how hard it is – how I have to struggle seven days a week every godd––m day of the year just to get by. They (and you) have no idea of the sacrifices involved in being a professional giclee artist.

    Robert
     
  12. RParrish

    RParrish PFG, Picture Framing God

    Robert

    Your really getting out of hand, take a break.
     
  13. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    You're right that there are too many sub-sections of editions and it is often used to try to fool the customers. But I think most customers can figure out when this is happening, simply by looking at all the different sub-categories that are listed for an edition and adding up the numbers to get the total number.

    Several years have already passed since the public caught onto the fact that some edition sizes were not very limited (i.e. 50,000) so they practically stopped buying. The artists and publishers responded to the reduced demand by reducing their edition sizes. The most ridiculed artist in this regard (Robert Bateman) for example, published some editions sizes of 50,000, but is now doing only 950 and 550. So the market has corrected itself.

    But limiting the supply of good art that sells out can increase the value of the prints; that's the whole idea of limiting the numbers, and if it didn't work, artists and publishers would have stopped doing it long ago. I can tell from your statement that you have no experience at secondary market print sales. You don't know what you're writing about. There are many dealers who specialize in secondary market sales of limited editions, and they, too, would disagree with you. They make their living (or a portion of it) re-selling sold-out, limited edition prints.

    You're wrong about that and insulting and not observant. I've agreed with many things that people have written in many of these messages, and I acknowledged my agreement, but you've chosen to ignore that.

    An example of how I'm in agreement with you is in my response above – in this very message – but because you've put blinders on and developed such a negative attitude toward me, you will probably choose to ignore that, too, and instead focus again only on where I disagree.

    I'm not the one who started arguing and being offensive and going on tangents. I came here to ask how to mount my canvas giclees archivally on board, but I've been criticized at every turn. Some of the criticisms were legitimate (like about my plan to use foamcore or Coroplast) but a lot of the criticisms of me are not relevant to the topic I initiated, and I've been roundly insulted repeatedly by people writing irrelevant criticisms like:

    ª I'm delusional, a poisoned Kool-Aid drinker and that I have a sick mind because I want to roll 'poop' onto my canvas prints (a.k.a. the scientifically proven Premier Art Products)
    • I'm unethical to not pre-publish all of my prints (even though I might never be able to sell them and would have to spend a fortune to print them and would eventually have to trash most of them and it would drive me out of business).
    • I'm improper by signing and numbering my giclees
    • having more than one image size for an edition is improper
    • my work as a giclee artist is 'relatively easy'

    Those criticisms are unrelated to the initial topic I started in this thread, and I explained why they're invalid, and I have a right to defend myself against scurrilous attacks, and they were all started by other people (not me) so your criticism of me 'just here to argue with anybody over everything they say' is inappropriate, rude and hypocritical.

    Also, those criticisms are also false and come from people who are upstarts (people who haven't made a living as a visual fine artist) but who think they know it all, despite their lack of experience.

    Robert
     
  14. CAframer

    CAframer SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    First and foremost it seems to me extremely unfortunate that the tenor of this thread has degenerated to something akin to a schoolboy pissing contest. I wonder if the same abrasive tone would continue if this was a face to face discussion as opposed to being via a semi-anonymous electronic forum. It is a shame that art and framing professionals cannot conduct a discussion thru this medium with more civility.

    Secondly concerning this item ...
    ... it is inane for anyone to discuss as "archival" the merits or demerits of a given approach without a clear definition of the meaning of "archival". In this regard, and to reiterate, from the The Society of American Archivists:
    ANSI/AIIM deprecates the use of 'archival' because it is a highly subjective term. Rather, they suggest using measures of 'life expectancy', which are based on empirical tests. While no materials meet the ideal definition of 'archival', many archivists use the term informally to refer to media that can preserve information, when properly stored, for more than a century. The use of 'archival' in commercial advertising to describe products suitable for materials and implying an infinite life span has made this use of the word nearly meaningless; some products so described would never be used by most archivists for such purposes.

    Some thoughts to consider in relation to this specific question include, but are certainly not limited to:
    • Whereas there has been much discussion of comments from manufacturer and testing laboratories concerning light fastness and durability of coatings, there has been no comparable discussion or evidence offered in relationship to the other elements of the approach you outline, especially with regard to the SAA default value for the term "archival", namely, preserving for more than a century.
    • There are two varieties of Frank's adhesive. Whichever you are considering unless the chemical composition is understood and tested with regards to longevity it would seem foolhardy to postulate that they are "archival" in the SAA default sense, even though they may be. Presumably the pH neutral variety is buffered, which at least for some period would neutralize the acetic acid that PVA produces. Whether or not this is "archival" would depend on both definition and testing.
    • Ditto for Gator. My understanding is that Gatorfoam is a combination of polystyrene and a polymeric impregnated veneer, and that because of its unique composition, there are no conservation standards that specifically apply to Gatorfoam. On a conservator's forum one conservator agreed to use Gator for a short (4 - 5 month) exhibition, adding the comment that due to the short nature of the intended use, "we were in a position to agree to the request and make a more hasty decision than if we were intending to use the material in long-term contact with an object." Again the implication is that substantial testing and validation would be required before accepting this product for long term "archival" use.
    • Volara is Voltek's brand name for their "archival quality", closed cell polyethylene foam. It is irradiation crosslinked foam with an extremely soft, smooth, nonabrasive and pliable surface. I have not seen a specific definition of what "archival quality" means in this context, but it is certainly widely used and an accepted product. Volara tape is just one of several ways of avoiding adhesion between a painted surface and the rabbet of a frame.
     
  15. Mike Labbe

    Mike Labbe Member, Former moderator team volunteer

    This forum has a wealth of knowledge and information, thanks to the generosity of it's membership.

    This thread has brought up some great topics and a lively discussion, some good info, and even some misinformation; but it could use a good dose of attitude adjustment; IMO. We're all on the same team, folks!

    Everyone agreed to the forum policies when they joined, and here there are again as a reminder:

    This thread is starting to get moderator alerts, requesting it to be locked down and/or for the original aggressive poster to be banned.

    For the most part, participants have shown an unparalleled level of courtesy and respect. :) For those of you who haven't, and you know who you are, can we try a bit harder?

    Thanks in advance
    Mike
    Forum moderator team
     
  16. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

  17. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    An irony I've found about being a fine artist is that you can be somewhat famous but still be broke. One of the reasons for this is the recession. Another is the continuing slide of the art market that started long before the recession. And another is that the framers and galleries make most of the money.

    If you were astute, you would have noticed that I'm proficient by what I've written. The quality of my writing clearly indicates my level of proficiency. An astute person can figure out if someone is an expert by analyzing what they're saying.

    No. I didn't come here to show my art. I'm operating under a pseudonym because I don't want people who search engine my name find me arguing in public. That would be unprofessional and indiscreet. Sorry to disappoint you. I didn't come here to discuss my art, anyway; I was dragged into by having me methods lambasted.

    If you don't want to believe that I am who I say I am, that's okay. I'm sure some skeptics will poo-hoo my claim and accuse me of being a fraud. So be it. I don't want to damage my reputation among my fans and peers and retailers by revealing my identity and having them see me arguing in public.

    You may have heard of people being increasingly concerned about protecting their privacy by being embarrassed about what was revealed about them on Facebook, ectetera. That's my situation.

    Another reason is that I don't want my local peers to find out how I'm going to mount my prints. I've put a lot of time and effort into this research project, so I want to keep it under wraps as much as I can among my local peers. It may give me some competitive advantage.

    Robert
     
  18. Kirstie

    Kirstie PFG, Picture Framing God

    Although there is a lot to wade through, and a lot of repitition, there are also useful bits of information being posted. A balancing act for moderators, I know.
     
  19. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Did too. I could go back to that message and quote it, but it would be too much work. But a lot of the readers know that you wrote 'poop'.

    Robert
     
  20. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    It's good that you have a thick skin at work. You sure haven't display that laudable quality here. (You complained negatively that I'm only here to complain, because you don't like my criticisms. That's not only axiomatically false, it's also very insulting to me because it's not a valid criticism.)

    That's being extremely thin-skinned. And many framers are angered by ignorant customers. Jeff wrote in this very thread about how he's peeved by some of his ignorant customers!

    Again, you're not being observant. I just published a message about various things I've been unfairly criticized for here and you were even one of the insulters!

    Why do you disagree with Rob's recommended method of gluing the canvas to gatorboard with Frank's Fabric Adhesive? He wrote in this very thread that he just did 200 like that for a hotel! You're implying that his work is ####!

    Is there any likelihood that that method would fail within the next 60 years, if the prints were hung in a museum-like setting (meaning low light and controlled humidity) and varnished with two coats of Eco Print Shield? Because that's how I plan now to do my canvas prints!

    Robert
     
  21. osgood

    osgood SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Don't go outside when it's windy!

    Mmmmm..... 'Expert' - 'X' could be the unknown factor and a 'spirt' could be a drip under pressure!
     
  22. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    This is ridiculous. I'm not complaining to a mod because I've participated in this thread already. That has worked to my disadvantage in the past. I will say, though, this guy isn't even communicating anymore. He's reading 2 and 3 day old posts and just bashing everything said by everybody.

    The suggestions he was given is typical daily fare around here. I can see where Robert has been registered a good long while but I can't tell that he has spent much time seeing how this board flows. Even though the suggestions he was given is common place this never ending barrage of bashing he's doing now is quite atypical for the G.

    It's very clear that he doesn't enjoy our company or decorum of this board and yet he hangs out. Obviously this has been a very negative experience for him but stays only to bash and thrash. I feel something should be done to squelch this as I don't see this ending well at all.

    Carry on.
     
  23. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    I second Jays comment.

    Robert, just drop it and go do whatever you want. It's apparent you'll not play nicely and more than a few decided to call you out on it and now you get all uppity with your fancy words trying to show us all just how smart you think you are.
    By the way, did you just buy that new dictionary?

    How can you see to find those words when your nose is so far in the air, as you look down at the rest of the world with your continuously condescending attitudes towards pretty much everyone on the G.
    Most of the ones responding to you actually love to fight it out here so you will neither win nor convert nor will you get the better of them with your rapier like wit so it's best that you let it go.

    Seriously, just go.
     
  24. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    I concur wholeheartedly. Thanks for your input, CAFramer. I agree that those people should stop their nasty, rude, unwarranted, hypocritical, below-the-belt and irrelevant criticisms. ;-)

    Given the absence of long-term scientific studies re. Gator and the pH neutral variety of Frank's Fabric Adhesive, has anyone noticed deterioration of artwork using either of these materials? If framers have been using these materials extensively for twenty, thirty, forty or more years without noticing deterioration, that would give me confidence that they should be good enough for my end. (You'll probably say that Gatorboard and Frank's Adhesive haven't been around for forty years.)

    My end is to have the prints last without noticeable deterioration for at least 60 years – about the same length of time that Wilhelm Imaging estimates that my paper giclees printed on an Epson 7600 or 9600 should last when printed on Somerset Velvet or Velvet Fine Art Paper and framed under regular glass. (I'd even be satisfied with 50 years).

    Robert



    [/LIST][/QUOTE]
     
  25. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    J, you're ignoring the warning of the moderator. Didn't you read his admonition to stop being rude?

    You're out of line again. I have to read old posts because there are so many of them I can't keep up. If I didn't read them, I'd be rude by not following up when people are trying to help me.

    And I just acknowledged in my last message that I agree with you on various points, yet you're again being negative and impolite by claiming that I'm negative about everything, and that's hypocritcal.

    And as I pointed out, the bashing wasn't started by me. Please go back and read it chronologically, to see what I mean. (Then again, maybe you won't see this because you are developing a penchant for criticizing me.)

    Robert
     
  26. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Framah: Didn't you read what the moderator wrote? He told you to be polite, but you're ignoring his warning by continuing to make personal attacks.

    Why so much negativity and cynicism? May I remind you that I was not the one who started the irrelevant sub-threads with their spiteful, rancorous, malevolent onslaughts.

    I read somewhere about how the grumbers are so agreeable and polite and approach things with great sense of humor. That's not the warm welcome I'm getting from hostile people like you.

    You're even angry because some of the words I use are too big for you! How petty! Again you're going off-topic by making such a censure. Why should I be ashamed of my vocabulary? If my words are too big for you, maybe you should go back to school. I have a right to use fancy words, as long as they're not hurtful and people understand what I mean.

    Also, I have a right to try to show people that I'm smart when people imply that I'm stupid. That's otherwise known as self-defence. For example, Rob called me 'delusional' for wanting to varnish my canvas prints with the scientifically proven Premier Eco Shield varnish. And there are many other such insults here. It's also an insult to my professionalism as well as being a personal insult, because it implies that I'm incompetent, and that I'll be selling a low-quality product by using that coating.

    Robert
     
  27. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Didn't you read what the moderator wrote? He just warned you to stop making personal attacks, but you're ignoring his warning.

    Robert
     
  28. Mike Labbe

    Mike Labbe Member, Former moderator team volunteer

    Robert,

    Actually, I was specifically referring to you. Your only intent seems to be inciting others. You are creating an unfriendly and hostile environment, contrary to the laid back policies of this private forum.

    You've earned a ten day vacation to "banned camp", and will hopefully find something productive to do with this time. If you evade the ban by creating another account from the same IP, the suspension period will triple to 30 days.

    Enough is enough. :)

    Best regards,
    Mike
     
  29. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    If you do a search by key word of this entire thread, you will not find the word "poop" or any reference to excrement in a posting that I made.

    In post #67, I did use the word, "goop," which is quite a bit different and in our shop, refers to the consistancy of a gel like substance, and is in no way intended to be derogatory.

    Mod- thank you for the "time out."
     
  30. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Finally-

    This is what I have been saying all along - and is the perfect solution to the OP's original request.

    From my POV, there should be no noticable deterioration caused by the mounting materials to the produced image within the timeframe specified.

    Though there seems to be an apples/oranges comparison-

    I thought we were talking about output on canvas and overcoated.

    If you want something to last as long as "my paper giclees printed on an Epson 7600 or 9600 should last when printed on Somerset Velvet or Velvet Fine Art Paper and framed under regular glass," then print them on those papers and FRAME THEM UNDER GLASS.

    Digital Output on canvas and overcoated is not the same thing and it is unreasonable to expect the same results.
     
  31. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    It's ok, Rob... he's gone.:beer:
     
  32. framerbob

    framerbob CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Thanks everyone for their imput, this thread answered several questions I've had recently. I love being able to come to the grumble and get instant advise
     
  33. Pat Murphey

    Pat Murphey SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I think a little introspection is due for several other posters in this thread. The fault was not all Bob's.
     
  34. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

  35. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Over there he mentioned using acrylic gel thinned with water. I've used acrylic gel with some success, but it's plenty thin enough already. Why thin it and lose the benefit of its viscosity in embracing the heavy texture of the canvas?

    The first time I bonded a canvas to an acrylic sheet using acrylic gel, I left it overnight under weight with a Kraft paper overleaf. Next morning, it was still not dry. Moreover, the moisture had permeated the entire thickness of the canvas, and the Kraft paper overlay was stained with bits of dissolved ink. Curiously, the image still looked perfect. I can only guess what might have happened if that image had not been coated.

    Subsequently, when mounting with a water-bone emulsion such as Lascaux 360 or acrylic medium, I coat both surfaces, allow it to begin setting up before joining, then place under weight for only a couple of hours. Then I remove the weight and let it rest until dry, so the moisture can freely evaporate.
     
  36. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    On the other forum, Mr. Montgomery also said that I had glazed the 200 piece hotel job.

    For the record, the pieces were not glazed, they were overcoated.

    So that there be no misunderstanding:

    I am not against overcoating.

    I am not against gallery wraps.

    I am not against digital output on canvas.

    All have their place in the art business that I make my living from - and I use overcoated digital output on canvas as a part of my product offerings. Some are stretched and others are mounted.

    But I am realistic enough to know that all materials have their limitations and some are better suited for a specific application than others.
     
  37. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    But Rob, Mr. Montgomery said....:shutup:

    Methinks he could benefit from attending a couple of your classes.
     
  38. wpfay

    wpfay Angry Badger

    You have always been an optimist, Jim.

    Rob, the rest of the Grumble, and perhaps the rest of the world understood you. Thank you for your patience under duress. You are a gentleman and a scholar in the truest sense of the phrase.
     
  39. shopmonkey cpf

    shopmonkey cpf CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    "I with you feller's!"
    ---O Brother Where Art Thou
     
  40. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    Really? You haven't received a 'stupid package' like that? How is it then that museums exhibit using gatorboard 'stupid packages'?

    Aside from the coating debate, some of the readers got side-tracked into the topic of how to run my art business, All of that advice was unsolicited, off-topic and implied that I'm a beginner, incompetent or unethical, so it's all insulting. This is the case despite what Jay H. wrote: "I would be offended if a framer (being ignorant about art) told you how to run your business. I've not seen that here. " Really? you and other Grumbers wrote the following criticisms. all of which assume that 1) I'm a beginner 2) I need advice that on topics I didn't ask advice about and 3) I must follow their advice or I'm not doing things properly and ethically. They wrote:

    • claiming that I'm deceitful by printing my limited editions in different sizes. That's hypocritical because no pragmatic framer would offer framing of pictures only in one size, if customers came in asking for frames in different sizes.

    • suggesting that there are legal issues I need to look into regarding the fidelity of my giclee editions (without bothering to ask how much experience I have as an artist) which implies that I don't know what I'm doing)

    • claiming that I need to write caveats on my certificates of authenticity (which again implies that I'm naive and incompetent and a beginner and that I haven't considered that issue)

    • accusing me of gouging. (Jeff wrote that I charge five times more for my canvas prints, when in fact he had no inkling of what my prices are). "The only difference between what you sell and my own Giclees on canvas are you put a numbering system on yours then charge 5 times what I do."

    • implying that I'm one of the artists whose damaged the limited edition market. (Jeff Rodier wrote: "Digital artists have turned the LE market into a joke and the consumer has caught on to it."

    • implying that I'm unethical for printing editions that have too many prints in them.

    • claiming falsely that I'm producing and selling inferior art because it's reproduction giclees rather than 'original' prints, as if giclee printers are like printing presses used by artists to print counterfeit money

    • making the absurd put-down that being a giclee artist is 'relatively easy'. compared to making non-digital original prints.

    • implying that I'm crooked by making and selling reproduction giclees rather than 'original' prints

    • claiming falsely that I need to profile my images according to the way my canvas prints look after coating, and criticizing me for not doing. (I've never heard that caveat from any source other than Rob, yet I've had no complaints about the colors of my canvas giclees from anyone.)

    * claiming falsely that I need to use the latest printer available and if I don't I'm selling an inferior product. (Many canvas giclees are being printed and sold by other artists and publishers via Epson 7600 presses, and there's nothing sub-standard about that, and the permanence ratings for the 7600 for my current giclees are the same as for the latest Epson printer.)

    * Insulting me by making this false statement (which Jeff Rodier did): "Any high end gallery that would display Robert's work will search the net for his credentials and learn that his standards are extremely low for the price point. (He has no idea what my price point is, so how can he make such a claim? And my art IS carried by some high-end galleries. Some of my giclees were even exhibited in a gallery that was exhibiting a bronze sculpture priced at $240,000!

    • claiming falsely that giclees on canvas are dishonest because they're meant to look like paintings when they're not. (Fluid acrylics look like watercolors and watercolors were invented first, but that doesn't mean that fluid acrylics are dodgy.

    • claiming that I must kowtow to Rob Markoff's expounding on the topic of giclee coating because he's an industry expert. (In other words, don't question authority even though your career may hinge on doing so, and even though I proved Rob wrong.

    • implying that my signing and numbering of my prints is useless. Jay H: "Robert says that not numbering his images would devalue the work. That thought primarily exists in the this art community. There is very little historical relevance to that statement". If it were useless, artists, art publishers and dealers would have stopped doing it and discouraged it a long time ago.

    • making the preposterous claim that I must print all of my 60,000 prints of my existing editions up-front, even though doing so would make me go bankrupt. (Let's use a very conservative figure and assume that my ink and paper costs per print are $25. Sixty thousand prints x $25 = $1.5 million. They're telling me I have to spend at least $.5 million now for me to sell my limited editions ethically. And that doesn't include other costs, such as labor and renting a warehouse and annual taxes on unsold inventory. And presumably I have have to fix the flawed prints also in advance, using the same brand of paint, and to sign and number them all in advance as well, using the same brand and color of pencils, in order to meet the exacting standards. Other companies (including picture framers) try to reduce their inventory toward the end of the tax year to minimize taxes. The advice I've gotten here says art publishers have to go by a different rule: that we have to keep inventory on hand in case it might sell five, ten, twenty or thirty years in the future. This is sheer madness! How can you not expect me to get angry when I get such lunatic advice. (I' m sure my accountant would think you're crazy, too! Why don't you ask your own accountant if he or she recommends producing inventory now to sell it 30 years in the future?)

    • scolding me of "getting out of hand" and being advised to 'take a break' (R Parrish), despite all of the above insults.

    • implying that I'm doing the wrong thing by altering my prices. Jay H: ...the goal is ...not altering price, not value, not supply/demand. " I don't know of any artist or art publishers that don't alter their prices. Again this is an unrealistic stipulation and criticism of my practices that no one in the business adheres to, as far as I know, and if he were in the art business, he would know that stipulation is preposterous.

    • scolding me for being argumentative. Jay H: "Originally Posted by Jay H
    Robert is clearly just here to argue with anybody over everything they say." See above, Jay. and the others who made similar criticisms. (See above meddling insults toward me.)

    This list is not exhaustive, but my letter is becoming too long to list all of the insults and criticisms that have been made here of me. But you get the gist of what I'm writing. (on the other hand, some of the readers are so dense they won't even agree that this long list of insults is a legitimate complaint of mine.)

    Again, a reminder of what Jay H. hypocritically wrote: ""I would be offended if a framer (being ignorant about art) told you how to run your business. I've not seen that here."" Then you should be offended because I just listed a whole bunch of offensive, ignorant criticisms from some of the framers who (being framers) are ignorant about art yet, told me in no uncertain terms how to run my business anyway. How could you have missed all of this? Could it be because your view is blinkered? According to you, your view is not blinkered, but mine is, yet you've missed all of these obvious slights against me. And all of those criticisms of me have nothing to do with my question that I asked, which was not "How should I run my art business?" but rather "How to mount a canvas archivally on a board". So please stick to the topic and don't go on tangents and insult people.
     
  41. CAframer

    CAframer SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Gee...Zussss ... enough already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  42. Blackcat

    Blackcat CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Robert, I am sorry you feel so offended by many of us. This is suppose to be a source of constructive advice, suggestions, expertise, and opinions for everyone who participates. You initially asked about one topic, and as conversations normally do, the topic evolved. It evolved the way it did partly because many of those trying to help you became concerned or disagreed with some of your standards or practices of art and the way you were selling your art. Please realize that most of the comments and suggestions were well intentioned.

    Does it not concern you that so many people disagree with your standards or way of producing art? Also, it wasn't just one aspect of your art that people found issue with, but many issues and by many people. And I don't think you can just say that we are a bunch of framers who don't know about art, because many of us are either artists, art collectors, or simply art knowledgeable individuals.

    I was personally interested in your standards of limited editions and, while I still don't agree with your way of making editions, I feel that there is a need for a new way to edition digital art, giclees, and the like. A new way that is open to prints being created at different times, sizes, etc., but that also doesn't so closely resemble the traditional method. Again, I am not biased against digital art as a medium, I simply don't agree with how you are producing and marketing your work.

    And that's the great thing about this forum, you can get advice and opinions from many people and you don't have to agree to any of it. So why get so upset. You are obviously set in your ways about a lot of things so just ignore the advice you don't like. We were just trying to help.
     
  43. Dan Berg

    Dan Berg CGF, Certified Grumble Framer

  44. Robert Montgomery

    Robert Montgomery In Corner

    I appreciate the advice about framing/mounting, and realized during the discussion that people were right to rebuke me for my plans to use Coroplast and foamcore. I feel that that those criticisms were constructive. So I'm not set in my ways in that regard.

    I agree that I'm set in my ways about how I'm producing and marketing my art. But why shouldn't I be steadfast about those things? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What's wrong with the way I produce and market my art?

    You wrote, "We were just trying to help." That's fine, but as I pointed out in my long list, insulting me is not helpful.

    For example Framah inveighed against me for using big words and having my 'nose in the air'. Is that being helpful? Is that being fair? I boasted about my credentials only when backed into a corner by people who pilloried me (see the long list of pillorying against me) as a method of self-defense. Rob Markoff did the same thing: he boasted about his expertise as a framer, consultant and inkjet specialist. The difference is that Rob turned out to be igorant about inkjet coatings and I proved him wrong about that to such a degree that he completely reversed his position; in the end he claimed falsely that he had never condemned the Premier Art inkjet coatings and actually supported their use despite having earlier called me and others 'delusional' and 'having a sick mind' for supporting their use. I, on the other hand, have not been proven wrong about the way I produce and market my paper giclees. So why didn't Framah accuse Rob of having his 'nose in the air'?

    Was it helpful and well-intended – or a personal insult and a double standard – for Framah to accuse me of having my 'nose in the air'? I merely called myself a master giclee printmaker and stated that I have a measure of renown. I was stating facts. That's not having 'my nose in the air'. Why does Framah not criticize the framers here, such as Jay H., who's title in the forum is "Picture Framing God"? That is having one's nose in the air! Calling one's self a master giclee printmaker doesn't imply omnipotence or omniscience, but calling oneself a God does imply such superiority over mortals. I never claimed that I'm a God or of having god-like superiority. Why doesn't Framah pour scorn on members like Jay H., who claim to be Gods?

    Was it helpful and well-intended of the critic who wrote to me, "Do go outside when it's windy"?

    Was it helpful and well-intended to be ridiculed by outsiders who know nothing about the art business? Jeff responded that many or most of the Grumblers are former artists or photographers, and that therefore you ARE qualified to make those judgments, but, as I wrote before, you're not qualified because you are outsiders and that disqualifies you, just as I am disqualified from criticizing your framing practices because I know little about framing. In other words, you have to "walk the walk" before you can "talk the talk", or you have to "walk a mile in a man's shoes" before criticizing his practices. For example, if you knew anything about running an art business, you'd know that it's insane to pre-print entire editions ten, twenty, forty of sixty years before you might have a chance to sell some of those prints. (And by the way, in 20, 40 and 60 years those prints would already have decayed somewhat, which counteracts the aim of providing products of archival quality.) That criticism of my practices is so crazy that of course I was angry about it and have a right to express how I feel about that.

    Was it helpful and well-intended to write that if I'm so famous, how come I can't afford to buy the latest 44-inch printer? That shows a basic lack of understanding of the fact that an artist can be somewhat well-known but still be poor (and yet you claim to be such experts on the topic of how to be an artist that you can give unsolicited advice and criticisms to an established artist and get angry when he rejects that advice.)

    Was it helpful and well-intended that claim that if I'm so famous, how come I'm consulting simple picture framers for advice on how to mount a canvas onto board? (Oh, right, I forgot; I should have asked my limo driver, butler, chef or haberdasher. How forgetful of me! I temporarily forgot about that because I was dreaming about all of money that's rolling off of my Epson 7600 printing press like $50 bills rolling off of a press at the Treasury.)

    Was it helpful and well-intended to vituperate me for displaying "rapier wit"? (Seems to be a the wit was perceived as a threat to someone possessing less of that quality). How petty.

    Was it helpful and well-intended to vituperate me for my vocabulary and to imply that consulting a dictionary is a bad thing (likely perceived as a threat to someone with a smaller vocabulary). Instead of admiring someone with a bigger vocabulary than you have, you tried to get me to lower my standard to your low standard. That's a philistine attitude. Instead of criticizing me for using a dictionary, you should use one yourself, and learn something new in the process! It reminds me of the hateful scorn of an immature high school bully who sees that he's not as good as the star pupil at math, or gym or geography, or whatever, and because of that he hates and envies the star pupil and belittles the star pupil to try to exact revenge.

    Was it helpful and well-intended to call me argumentative and negative about everything, as Jay H. did. (Yeah, right. And those things I just listed – and that I listed in my other long list – aren't argumentative and negative attacks against me?)

    Was it helpful to be told, "Take a break," and "Don't be so upset" as if I don't have a right to defend myself when bullied.

    Was it helpful to be suspended by the moderator? Being booted off by the moderator was unsportsmanlike, defamatory and a double standard because, although he acknowledged that the schoolyard antics were coming from a variety of people, I was the only one punished; nobody else got even a one-day suspension. The moderator even partook in the abuse by writing, "I hope you make good use of your time", as if I'm a misbehaving pupil in elementary school, rather than a professional who was defending himself against an unjust swarming. The moderator should apologize.

    A large amount of unfair criticisms amounts to bullying, and bullying would make most self-respecting artists (or if the tables were turned: picture framers), bristle, and either a) retreat and continue and be misunderstood and be disrespected or b) to respond to try to clear the air by explaining things and presenting their credentials to stop the harassment.

    By retreating, I would continue to leave myself open to misinterpretation and the ridicule that that entails. By responding and giving my credentials (to show that I AM qualified to make appropriate judgments about my work) the attacks against me increased tenfold. I was then accused falsely and misinterpreted further (see above.)

    Being helpful is fine and much appreciated and I thank those who have tried to steer my mounting plan in a good direction. Being insulted and bullied, on the other hand, is not fine and is not appreciated. I think this should be self-explanatory.
     
  45. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    It's one thing to speak normally and another to load the conversation with words not normally used in everyday conversation in a rather unsubtle attempt to make yourself seem more important than you actually are. This is a quite obvious attempt to condescend to the people here in a vain attempt to show your self-perceived superiority.
    This is what I was describing by you having your nose in the air. It is how you came off in this posting. It's too bad to don't want to take the less than subtle hint that you seem to have problems interacting in society and might do well to contemplate why this whole episode here on the G has gotten you to this point.

    By the way... Jay didn't make himself a framing god, the Grumble did based on the number of posts by Jay.

    There are quite a few other gods here besides Jay.

    Based on the longevity of Jay, myself and others here, we can pretty much jump on each others case about things they say and still be able to continue with life on the Grumble as we know it... you, on the other hand, do not seem to want to just let it go.

    By now, most here don't care one way or the other what you think or say so if you want, you can continue to scream at the sky or you can drop it and get on with your life.
    Really.. your choice, but pretty soon, the decision will be made to just permanently block you from the site altogether.
    Have a nice day.:)
     
  46. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    Let.

    It.

    Go.
     
  47. shayla

    shayla WOW Framer

    Robert, the labels under people's names here are not
    chosen by the people themselves. They are part of the
    Grumble site, and automatically show up when someone
    hits a certain number of posts.

    I'm not going to comment on the thread's main
    topic right now, but will give this a mention. No matter
    who starts the mud-slinging on a miry thread such as this
    one, it's almost impossible to clear the air by continuing to
    make giant posts on the subject. I myself write some pretty
    long posts at times, but they're never in an aggrieved
    or hostile tone. This isn't directed at you alone, as there
    was plenty of back and forth here that fed the tangle from
    both sides. What can happen when this sort of argumentative
    quagmire results is that people will either stop coming back
    to read the thread at all, or they'll choose the 'ignore' option.
    In that case, they won't see your posts at all, which is
    certainly not your hope.

    I've never put anyone on 'ignore', but some do, and
    you're interested enough in this forum that it would
    be a shame if that happened to you. Peace. I'm out of
    here.
     
  48. Jay H

    Jay H PFG, Picture Framing God

    Thank you for filtering through that and calling my attention to the part that is relevant to me. I do have to politely critique that statement if I may.

    I am in fact and and have always been a picture framing god. I did rush through quite a few posts in order to rightfully be recognized for what I am.

    I still do have a beef with the term though. "God" has become a watered down word. It means so many different things to different people. As you point out there are others right here that share that title. There's "your God" and "My God". Last night I was even called "Oh God". It's tedious and I can no longer tolerate it.

    From this day forward I'm going to have to just go ahead and request that everybody refer to me by my preferred title. "El Conquistador." From now on I prefer yall call me "El Conquistador."

    Thank you. Back to what ever is going on here at this point.
     
  49. Ylva

    Ylva SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I was hoping this thread was going to disappear quietly, but no.

    Let's get back to the original question and post another suggestion. Might not work, but oh well.

    Still seems to me that stretching is the best option. If the canvas is too small, or not enough room around to stretch and not loose the image; wouldn't it be possible to sew on strips of extra canvas and then stretch?

    I assume, you being an artist, that you stretch your own canvases? If not, it's not that hard to learn. I knew how to stretch, long before I started framing. Takes a bit of practise, but is well worth it.
     
  50. wpfay

    wpfay Angry Badger

    Gosh El Conquistador, that's an awful lot to type, can we just call you "El"?
     
Sponsor Wanted

Share This Page

Wizard Ad