Managing the transition from Museum to ArtGlass

Joe... I was surprised at the tin foil hats remark from Rob, but I do feel he was jumped on just for providing good solid educational information and responded in frustration.

Rob is not presenting his opinion on things other than to say if you are providing conservation framing you should use a glazing that meets the accepted standards. If you choose not to accept those standards then so be it, but realize that you are not offering the highest degree of preservation framing.

I'll say again that you should first inform yourself so that you can provide an informed recommendation to your customer for whatever work they bring in. I sell a lot of Tru-Vue Ultravue glass which only has about 65% UV protection to customers that don't care about preservation as much as presentation. I sell CC glass to people who are on a budget but prefer a high degree of preservation. I sell Museum glass to those who want the best of both worlds. I don't have ArtGlass available to me or I would probably consider offering it too if the price point was significantly better than MG or the difference in clarity was that much better but I would also let the customer know that it is not up to accepted conservation museum standards.

 

I guess I don't get where that is coming from.

Ultimate conservation of any artwork will require it not being framed at all, so framing means there are going to compromises to the longevity of the art.

Who has established what levels, and what are they called? From what some have said, the FATG HAS established levels, and ArtGlass would meet any or all of them.

I say again, you cannot commandeer a generic term and make it mean something specific.

 

I guess for me museum conservation framing means using the absolute best materials and methods for the article being framed considering the environment the piece will reside in.

 

At the risk of being accused of TMI and "blinding you with science" - I want to add the following for those interested in the science behind the conclusions.

There has been discussion about which is (potentially) more "damaging" - infrared or ultraviolet.

I maintained that because UV is a higher frequency than Infrared, it has "more energy" and therefore the potential for doing more "damage" within a specific period of time.

Note that I did not say, "heat" because putting something in a hot, dark environment is also bad - but that isn't what we are discussing. The discussion is about energy.

OK - here comes the science part. Pat, you might want to stop reading.

Just because something has a higher frequency does not in itself prove that it has more energy. We need a way to verify it. Measure it.

The energy of photons is measured in a unit called the electron volt, or eV.

Let's not get into exactly what that unit of measurement is because that stuff is way over all of our heads.

So let's look at the numbers of various wavelengths of energy:

Wavelengths are measured in a unit called a nanometer. The earth's atmosphere blocks UV below 300 nm. (which is why there is concern about destruction of the ozone layer and greenhouse gasses - but that is for another thread) so we are concerned about UV in the range of 300nm to 380nm.

UV actually goes to 400 nm but that is also part of the visible spectrum and if we were to block 100% of UV rays, it would distort the color of what we see. (Have you ever seen the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? The glazing over them blocks 100% of the UV light and it is visibly yellow - but in this case, protection is more important than aesthetics.)

At the lower end of UV (the most damaging not blocked by the atmosphere,) the energy is 4.13 eV.

At the higher range of Infrared, you can see that the energy is 1.38 eV That is almost 200% less powerful. Or to reverse it, UV is almost 200% more powerful.

Even if you look at the lower end of near Infrared, the difference is 133%

300nm: 4.13 eV (lower end of UV not blocked by atmosphere, etc.)
380nm: 3.26 eV (upper end of UV not blocked by atmosphere, etc.)
500nm: 2.48 eV (blue-green visible light)
700nm: 1.77 eV (low end of near infrared)
900nm: 1.38 eV (low end of far infrared)

Is it important to know this? Not specifically, but understanding that there is a science that can back up a statement such as "UV has more energy than Infrared" and that such a statement is not conjecture or opinion.

 

Maybe you should all look at what this thread was originally about. JWB99999 ask a question and made the statement about the UV blocking that started the whole new direction. No one offered to give him the advice he was looking for or answer his question. This thread took a right turn to; will the ArtGlass be as good as TV's museum and will it hold up to idustry standards? When I suggested a simple test, it wasn't meant to be a scientific test, just a simple test that anyone could do to see how the two types performed under the same UV conditions. There was no malicious intent to discredit either company. I certainly have nothing bad to say about TV and have always highly recommended their UV glass to both my framing customers and to my Attach-EZ customers. I know nothing about ArtGlass other than what I have learned here, and the most important thing that I learned is that I don't believe that JWB should transition at all. Carry both types of glass and let your customers decide which one will fit the needs of your customers and give you the most sales.

This all started because I suggested that someone who had access to both types of glass do a simple test. If out of frustration I or JoeB would have responded to Rob with the kind of insulting comments he made to us, we would have been banned. Yes indeed, there does seem to be a double standard.

 

While I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that it becomes subjective. By your very definition "considering the environment", ArtGlass could be a better choice than Museum Glass because of truer color rendition, if it were in an environment with very low to no UV light, i.e. in a museum, where protection from something that's not there is not necessary.

 

I agree with that, David. In a museum setting with low density special lighting and a controlled environment then ArtGlass could be considered a better alternative.

 

Pat- you keep saying that I am "missing the point" - yet you never respond to my asking you to explain what the "point" is.

What does, "see how the two types performed" mean?

Let's explore some possible outcomes:

a) There is NO difference

b) The section with MG is "less faded" than the one with AG

c) The section with AG is "less faded" than the one with MG

I think the problem with this "simple test" is that it is MEANINGLESS because it would only apply to THAT sample under THOSE conditions and for the length of time subjectively determined. How do you know that if the length of time were doubled, or tripled, or even extended for a year that the results would not be different? Or be different for another piece of art? Or if conducted at a different time of year?

Do you disagree?

If so, I am asking you to please tell us what conclusions could be derived from your "simple unscientific test." What do you think it would prove?

 

rob i do get your point above about the test


if its only specific to this test subject with this work etc etc. then why would the difference between the 2 product actually make that much difference, as surely there is no scientific way to measure, as like you say every test is only relevant to that specific print or whatever?


or is there some other way to measure how the difference will help or not?

does that make sense?

 

There have now been almost 3500 views of this thread but only 100+ posts. That means there must be a lot of people lurking who have not responded.

Putting aside all the personal emotions, has anyone learned anything from this tread?

Is there anyone who has read it that did not know there were two types of UV blocking and that one type is a fixed percentage of blocking and the other is variable?

 

Yes I did learn something but not in the setting I would prefer.

opps, didn't mean to put that cartoon within your quote.

 

That, my friend IS the question. I guess my response to you is what is "that much?"

Please note that in all of my posts, I never said that one was "better" than the other.

Science tells us that UV light energy is the most damaging. Science also tells us (I believe) that there are atmospheric changes happening with the potential outcome of increased levels of UV light. Science also tell us that there is an increase in the levels of oxidizing gasses (sulphur dioxide) from the burning of fossil fuels, car emissions, etc. Science also tells us that we should be concerned with fading caused by photo-oxidation, meaning the effect of light (especially UV light) on those gasses.

As a result, to achieve the maximum level of protection for art, we need to keep oxidizing gasses away from art and decrease the potential for photo-oxidation by controlling the quantity and quality of the light reaching the art.

How much protection is a subjective choice. That's why I can't tell you how much is "that much." I have explained that for me, it can't be "too much."

My objective was to be sure that those reading this thread understood that there is a difference in how UV light is blocked and that the potential aggregate blocking of one process is different than the other.

I have heard distributors say that the two types are "so close" that it doesn't "make a difference." I know of framers who said the same thing.

I'm going to bring up that icky word again; standards. Jim raised a point that I was trying to avoid because I expected it would open a whole can of worms - litigation.

None of this really matters unless someone perceives that there are detrimental results from choices or actions that we have made. Consequently, we have to look to "generally accepted practices" and some form of benchmark or standard to determine if the materials and techniques used met those levels.

Knowing that there are two types of UV blocking and that one is variable and the other is fixed, and telling someone that "there isn't that much difference" - when we KNOW that there is A difference is not something I am willing to do.

Would you use a matboard that contains a recycled core and OBA's to frame a high dollar piece of art even though there isn't "that much difference?"

Would you use a pressure sensitive adhesive tape to hinge the piece into a mat because "it isn't much different" than a starch paste and mulberry paper?

Would you have a piece of art 3/4" from the interior of a wood frame because it is "almost" an inch away?

Kirstie summed it up nicely and I will repost what she said: It is our job to know and understand the various materials and techniques used in framing and educate our customers to the degree necessary for them to make an informed decision. If they desire to have us make that decision for them they are placing their trust in us and it is our duty to impartially weigh materials and methods and make choices that are the best for our clients but inform them of what the expectations will be as far as degree of preservation.

So, if you are asking me what the expectation is as far as preservation between the two types of glass, my answer is, "I don't know."

What I do know is that an absorptive filtering glazing has a constant filter of a known percentage and that science tells us that a higher percentage offers more protection.

 

Rob, the above post from JWB99999 sums up what this thread was about. Once again you breezed right by it made it what you wanted it to be. I think they call it highjacking. Good information or not, you might want to start your own thread about the merits of the differnt glass and let this one be what it was intended. If you have never used Artglass you can't answer his question anymore than you can speak with any athority about the differences. At least Cliff Wilson was paying attention and offered some good information about Artglass, which is what he was asking for in the first place.

 

It's not in warped so a large amount of that now 3500+ are guests and couldn't respond if they wanted to, plus I and many others who actually have responded, for example, have read without responding each time they have read, that clocks up views.

A bit like UV rays - some get in and have an effect, some bounce off or get absorbed and some don't even get in the room!

The best place to hang your picture is in 'warped'

 

RoboFramer - isn't that what I said a long time ago? There is a lot of information here, some good, some bad (thanks to me :bdh. I still think this type of Thread should be in the Warped expecially after the first bullet flies.

To answer Robs question - yea, I learned more about UV & IR than I will ever need to know - I had to have read 20 different lengthy articles because of this thread - I really don't like reading that long dull information - they write with such big words... :icon9:

 

You missed it Joe - I meant the best place to hang your picture is in controlled environment, not some place any old UV beam could get in.

 

rob you quoted me out of context there,

the point is using your logic to explain the irrelevance of pat's test

ie the test is only relevant to that test, with that print etc

the fact that it is completely based on circumstance and many variables means . that we can not predict what will happen

actually the thread you mentioned a few times from Hugh

didnt it say something like, we should stop worrying about a few percentage points of UV filtration and care more about the oxidants?

this to me implies the difference between the 2 uv filtration methods is not the biggest concern

Yep your right one is constant and one is variable and from the figures from truview there can be a bigish difference

but from what Hugh said it sounds like worrying about this difference is not insignificant but maybe not the most important to worry about


just out of curiosity. i asked earlier in this thread, which "standard" using the word conservation, requires the 97%

am i right in saying its not the PPFA one as that uses preservation? or am i mis interpreting something


for me like i have said before i prefer the look of AG, and find it way easier to work with. and as the kind of work i do, virtually none of my customers ask for museum (i do have 4 types on display (CC,museum,ww AR and reg float) most of my customer are photographers and they love the look of AR glass but are not prepared to spend of AR UV glass


actually one more thought, Ultraview, the marketing materials i have seen have figures of between 65-70% uv filtration

i assume its not using the same uv absorptive filter, how does it work, do you know, and is it a fix figure. it doesn't hint on the tru view site as to how the filtration works

 

Yes, i posted 3 responses to the actual question, i ignored responding to side story. However, the side story seem to take over this thread and therefore my posts were probably buried as irrelevant.

Perhaps we need separate forum/threads which deal with specific items such as glass, backings, mat boards etc. In here you could have all the specifications of each type/brand, pros and cons, opinions etc. That way if someone wanted to know specifications of an item they would go there. And a general question could be answered as the poster was asking.

Don't get me wrong, i learnt a lot from this thread although most of it was not answering the poster.

 

Yes, I've learned a lot from this thread... and now I'm done with it.

Thanks, Rob.

 

I brought this back because i-FRAMER did answer JWB99999's question and as he said it was overlooked because of all the information that didn't pretain to the actual question.

 

Here's another post that got overshadowed by all of the non related information.

 

Maybe, someday, someone will figure out how to apply absorptive UV protection above 97% on water white AR glass, and market it in this industry. Until then, I am somewhat dismayed at the assertions that the Artglass product is satisfactory to meet conservation standards. Go ahead and sell it, I sell Ultravue, but don't pretend that you are making the best effort to conserve the art you are framing.

 

Pat, I don't understand how you think it's unrelated (except for the excess bickering by a lot of people, which I simply ignore)

What I got from the OP was that he was replacing Museum Glass with Art Glass. Rob simply pointed out that they are not the same. Cliff answered correctly that he added it as another choice, which I feel is what one should do when offering Art Glass.

We have an obligation to educate our customers about the differences and the choices. I have not seen Art Glass, yet, and I simply don't see the advantage of using it at this point as MG is not causing me any problems and I sell a fair amount of it without problems.


I don't completely understand all the technical information given (I have not really studied it yet either) but there is some good information in this thread that I definitely will use. Sure, not everything needs the highest conservation. But if you want to offer it, then TV is the product you should use.

 

Thank you for very succinctly articulating the attitude that has raised so many hackles. You seem to be treating conservation as a binary thing: if you don't clear an arbitrarily-set bar then you may as well use masking tape and corrugated cardboard for all the good you'll do. I and many others see "conservation" as a continuum full of compromises and tradeoffs.

 

I guess there's no room in conservation for standards or best efforts... opc:

 

Define standards or standard with respect to conservation. ..

 

If you read my post when I made the suggestion you know what the point of it was but you are choosing to ignore it.

You seem to be proud of the fact that there were 3500 views of this thread. What you don't know is that I have recieved several private messages and e-mails from some of those viewers who lurk, and are afraid to weigh in because of the way a few Grumblers bully those who disagree with them. The fact that there was 3500 views and only 100 posts to this thread is not something to be proud of. This site has given a lot of framers good advice and information to help them, but there are a few of late who have decided that theirs is the only opinion that counts. What good will this site be if so many are afraid to make a comment or ask a question? Or to disagree with you for fear that they will be insulted or made to look a fool.

Something that I learned years ago was that I already know everything that I know and am not learning anything new if I am always teaching, and not paying attention to those who are in the trenches everyday. Some of my best ideas have come from conversations with working framers while we were trying to firgure out how to mount something. The framing world is missing out here because a few have decided that they have nothing to learn and take over as if they are the only ones who are qualified to give advice. And most of the lurkers ideas will never get posted because they are afraid to sign in or post out of fear of being bullied. I am probably the leading expert on mounting shadowbox art easily and without doing harm, who comes this forum, but I will rarely post advice about mounting anything for the same reason. That's not the way it should be here. No one should ever be afraid to give an opinion or advice, but there are many who are.

 

Pat- I am not trying to be difficult, belittle you or insult you with this reply. I really want to understand your point of view but I am still having trouble understanding what the "point" is. I am not trying to ignore anything. I just cannot tell from your post what "the point" is.

Here is your original post: Take a cheap poster and put half with TV and half with AG and leave it in a sunny spot for a week or two. You might leave a couple of inches in the middle that you will keep covered so it won't fade at all. Since posters fade very fast it would be a very good experiment and then you would know and maybe share your findings. If I had AG I would do it myself but I'd rather not buy it just to prove a point.

You said that you thought this would be a "very good experiment" and by doing it, whoever did the experiment would "know."

I respectfully asked you and I am asking again, what would one "know" from doing the experiment?

You said, "prove a point." I am sorry but I do not understand what "the point" is.

I tried very hard to explain my point of view. Could you at least reciprocate and help me understand yours?

 

...like a dog with a bone.:icon11:

 

Not my job to repeat what has already been posted...

 

:faintthud::faintthud::faintthud::faintthud::faintthud:Give it up already! It won't matter what I say, you will find a way to discredit me.

 

I wish you wouldn't.

You want us to accept your "opinion" as "fact." When others challenge you, you feel you are being bullied. When I try to substantiate my "opinions" with scientific facts, you tell me I should "write a book" and that the information is "TMI."

You said that an experiment would be "really good." I interpret this to mean it would be beneficial and that the results would be indicative of data that might be able to be extrapolated and mean something. You also suggested that whoever does the experiment should share the results, yet you never substantiate why this would be a "good" experiment and what the results would be and would mean.

You say the experiment will prove a point - yet that "point" is vague and ambiguous and I don't understand it.

Why won't you have the courtesy to substantiate your opinion?

 

Geeez, Rob.. LET IT GO!!!:icon11:

Not only is the horse dead, but it has already been made into dog food AND served.

 

Well I asked you ..

I am interested in your definition. ..

It would be better not to be using words like standard or standards unless you are prepared to stand over them in respect of the subject you attached it to...

In your case you attached .... standards to conservation. ..what exactly do you mean !!!

 

let's go drink some wine, anyone????


Please don't let this discussion get into this bickering pissing match. I found quite a few posts interesting and helpful and this is ruining it and demeaning everyone involved.

 

Ilva's right Dermot. There is no sense in me repeating a standard that already appears in this thread.

 

That is not the point...

If you and for now I am referring to you...You cannot link conservation and standards without been prepared to define standard...

So can you define what you mean by conservation standards...

BTW I would not agree with you that any conservation standard was defined on this thread...

 

Okay, it might have been mentioned before in a post (and I get a headache even trying to read it back now) but here goes.

TV MG says it offers 99% UV protective
Artglass says 92% UV protective.

Forget about the kind of UV protection (I did understand that part and it does have value to me that the 92% is more of an estimate depending on the angle).


Who decides those percentages? The glass manufacturers? Independent bureaus?

I am not talking now about how much is considered conservation. Just truly trying to get a better understanding.

Simply put, why not go with the highest available for conservation? It can't hurt. For me, using Art glass would be for different reasons and mainly for price.

 

I use Art Glass.

I offer conservation framing.

The end.

 

Quote from post #51:

"5. In order to have a standard of reference, Trade Associations (the PPFA) and the Fine Art Trade Guild (the FATG) have created guidelines for Conservation level framing that requires glazing to filter at least 97%. This is non brand specific. Both organizations have also created guidelines for mat boards (again, not brand specific). I believe in and support both organizations and I am a member of both."

Go ahead and do whatever floats your boat...

opc:

 

As long as this thread has morphed into a discussion re: the "protocol" of posting, I can't and won't. Framah, if the following does not interest you, please don't continue to read.

Some call this discussion a "pissing match" but I don't see it that way. I think a rational discussion of the difference between "opinion" and "fact" and how debate and dialog are achieved by educated, rational people is warranted. This thread has been a perfect example.

Several posters (including myself) have expressed their "opinions" and expected those reading it should believe them to be "factual." When others who do not agree with the "opinions" respond, either their response is also an, "opinion" or a response based on facts.

Case in point: A poster brought up (erroneously) that (in his opinion) he felt that acrylic had properties (and therefore benefits) that it did not. I challenged that opinion as not being truthful and provided facts to support my position. He then felt compelled to spend time researching his opinion and was gracious enough to admit that he was mistaken. Others raised objections to other posts (mine included) and some presented facts to support their objections.

Case in point: I used the term "substantial" when describing the potential filtering percentage difference between the two filtering methods. I was rightfully challenged because I did not provide evidence to support my position. I responded with the best facts I could - and showed that there was a potential of a difference of more than 20% and said I felt that 20% was "substantial." And the person who challenged me thanked me for factually supporting my "opinion." I think that 20% is substantial. Others did not. But at least there is now a benchmark as to how I reached my opinion.

Pat suggested an "experiment" and in her opinion it would be "really good." I asked her to support her opinion with facts. She said "I am a show me and prove me wrong person. So....................if you really are the expert and educator that you want everyone to believe you are, show me and prove me wrong or get off the pot."

Through the course of this thread, I attempted to factually explain my position and also opened myself up to having my position challenged. That is how a factual debate works.

When I attempted to explain my position, rather than acknowledge the information I presented and efforts I exerted to substantiate my position, I was chastised as providing "too much information." And when politely asked to defend her opinion, she declines saying that no matter what she says I will find a way discredit her.

It would only be possible to do so if the facts she would present would not support her position. This isn't specifically about Pat - it applies to anyone posting OPINION as FACT.

Pat asked me if I was afraid of being proven wrong. I wasn't and "stayed on the pot." And I was beaten up pretty badly for doing so. Yet when the roles are reversed, Pat feels that she isn't under the same "obligation" to substantiate her opinion with facts. Her position is either defensible or it isn't.

It would be the same if JoeB said he "stood by his opinion" on the insulating properties of acrylic. Should we have accepted his "opinion" as fact because he would not defend his position for fear someone would discredit him?

 

That is about a reference to guidelines...

All that was said was to have a standard of reference....

That is NOT a conservation standard or standards.

As I have asked a few times, please define what you mean by "conservation standards".... or did you just make that reference in error !!!

Nothing wrong with an error if one can admit to it...

 

There is some misinformation somewhere, as three posts later we read:

And, the very next post:

I'm still waiting for someone to point us to publication of said trade association standards, since there is clearly disagreement over what those standards are.

Beyond that, I would suggest that when referring to said standards, that they be referred to by name, not by a generic term such as "conservation framing", if for no other reason that the two are unlikely to parallel one another.

 

i do think there is too much of people reading into this thread more than is really there.

like rob i think healthy debate is good, and yea some people may not like it, some may see it as attacks, but its just healthy debate

 

Trust me, Rob..

I rarely come on here much anymore because of people such as yourself who keep on jibber-jabbering about jibber-jabber lonnng after everyone has gotten bored with you and gone home.

Again, I say, your like a dog with a bone. You refuse to just let it go and move on.

You are the Sheldon Cooper of the Grumble.

Here. Let me sing a song for you that'll make you feel much better:

Soft Kitty,
Warm kitty,
Little ball of fur.
Happy kitty,
Sleepy kitty.
Purr, purr, purr.

Feel better, Shelly?

 

Rob, I'm quoting myself so that you can see my original post and see that in no way did I give anyone an opinion. I mearly made a suggestion based on my own experience with UV glass. I love UV glass and TV. What I really don't get is why you are so against someone doing some of their own testing? No matter how they do it what difference could it possibly make to you?

I said from the beginning that I can't speak about ArtGlass because I don't have it. The truth is that I have never even seen it because I never have time to leave my booth at the WCAF show and everything I know about it I learned here on this thread. From what you have said you have only seen it but have never used it. So why would you continued to post about something you couldn't possibly have any first hand knowlege about? You admittedly have never used it and because of that fact you couldn't possibly give Ed any unbiased advice about why he should or shouldn't use it.

The only advice I gave Ed, and it was only after reading all the information on both types of glass, I said that I didn't think he should transition at all. To keep both types and let his customers decide which one would be the money maker. That is the only opinion that I have given to him about the real subject of this thread.

If you keep on trying to teach someone how to build a watch when they only asked for the time, people witll quit listening to you. It's pretty clear that you have probably been the best advertising for Artglass that they could buy, because you have made a whole lot more people aware of Artglass and the qualities that framers like about it, by keeping this thread going. I'm sure TV is delighted about that.

 

Hi David,

I did some Google searches on behalf of your question, and I believe I found the answer. (or at least the one TV references with exceeding the 97% claim) The AIC also references this, and had a recent class about it.

TV referenced the 2007 revision, but it was recently updated again in 2013. I dont know what was changed, but this document is about much more than just glazing.

ISO 18902:2013 section 4.6

As far as I can tell, the sites that offer this PDF all want money to download it. I wasn't able to find the text of section 4.6, for free.

There ya go, for whatever it is worth. Apparently over $200!

Mike

 

Of course he could, he knows the tech-spec, handling/using it won't change that.

 

That's the last straw.

Rob's got a drive to help this industry. This industry without Rob would be a lot less professional. We need people that want us to build a better watch, and Rob's intellect, analysis and assistance has helped us all.

Twenty years ago he wrote an article advising us not to leave money on the table by discounting. Today he's keen on conservation standards. Look at how he's helped us in that twenty years. Jeez, why would anyone in their right mind insult him?

Pat: if I were selling a product internationally, Rob Markoff is the last person I'd insult in public.

 

There's plenty of experts here but I've never seen anyone make a claim like that!