Question Sealing Wood Frames with Acrylic Polymer

Gil Lopez-Espina

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Posts
101
Business
Studio
Does anyone have any experience or remarks about using acrylic polymer mediums, such as Liquitex Matte or Gloss Mediums, to seal the interior of wood frames to prevent outgassing? Although my intention is to use it with framed photographs, acrylic polymer would seem safe enough for sealing wood particularly since it has been used by artists for decades and many of the works reside behind glass.
 
Welcome to the Grumble Gil-

"used by artists for decades" - yes, but for what purpose? I'm trying to understand the thought process here-

"Outgassing" of what? Not that I am questioning whether or not the wood outgasses, but what is it that you think comes out and why would acrylic polymer stop it? Do you think that acrylic polymer is an impermeable barrier?

I would think that one should be more concerned with the edges of the mat (or photograph) coming within 1" of the interior of a wood frame unless it is lined.

Current standards say that the rabbet must be lined with glass or metal- and the easiest way is to use metal frame sealing tape. I do not recall that current standards say "sealed with acrylic polymer" or even polyurethane.

As others have posted, acrylic medium also is an excellent adhesive. If you coat the lip of the frame with medium, it is very possible to glue the glass to the inside of the lip, even after it dries. Then there is the question of "how much do you brush on and how uniform is the coating?"

Why not use something that is known to be acceptable and is easy to work with?
 

Attachments

  • Lineco tape.jpg
    Lineco tape.jpg
    5 KB · Views: 19
Of course Rob is correct; glass and metal are the only gas-impermeable barriers that are practical for framing purposes.

Painted coatings have limitations. They are applied inconsistently, as the thickness of the coating would vary over the entire painted surface. The wooden frame expands and contracts over time. The coating would expand and contract at a different rate than its wood substrate. So it would tend to develop cracks and blisters over time, which would reduce the value of the barrier. A solid, gas-impermeable material, such as the tape Rob mentioned, or lining the rabbet with strips of ordinary glass, would provide a much more complete and durable barrier. Aside from the greater benefit, tape or glass strips would require significantly less labor (time/cost) to apply to rabbet surfaces.
 
...glass strips would require significantly less labor (time/cost) to apply to rabbet surfaces.

True, Jim but I always have difficulty getting fitting staples through them :).
 
"used by artists for decades" - yes, but for what purpose? I'm trying to understand the thought process here-

"Outgassing" of what? Not that I am questioning whether or not the wood outgasses, but what is it that you think comes out and why would acrylic polymer stop it? Do you think that acrylic polymer is an impermeable barrier?

I would think that one should be more concerned with the edges of the mat (or photograph) coming within 1" of the interior of a wood frame unless it is lined.

Current standards say that the rabbet must be lined with glass or metal- and the easiest way is to use metal frame sealing tape. I do not recall that current standards say "sealed with acrylic polymer" or even polyurethane.

As others have posted, acrylic medium also is an excellent adhesive. If you coat the lip of the frame with medium, it is very possible to glue the glass to the inside of the lip, even after it dries. Then there is the question of "how much do you brush on and how uniform is the coating?"

Why not use something that is known to be acceptable and is easy to work with?

Rob, artists, such as myself, have been using matte and acrylic mediums for decades to either mix with paints, or as a glazing technique for producing transparent layers, or instead, as a final protective coat once the work is completed. Just take a second to imagine I want to do a water color painting but instead of using water color paints I opt to dilute my acrylic paints with matte or gloss mediums. Many times these acrylic paintings are executed on water color paper and exhibited in sealed wooden frames behind glass. So basically, if the acrylic polymer found in these mediums does outgas, many professionals and museums would have a serious problem in their hands.

As Jim Miller already knows, I'm currently leaving in Brazil, where all mouldings are made of TREATED pine or eucalyptus against termites and a little demon called 'wood broca.' Although it is difficult for me to test the actual amount of outgassing, I would imagine to be sufficient to be a serious problem. I have no knowledge Rob of how strong of an impermeable barrier acrylic polymer would be...do you? If these same acrylic polymer mediums have given protection to exposed paintings surfaces against all sorts of environmental pollutents, why should they not offer a suitable permeable barrier against the acid produced by wood?

Probably the biggest difference between our philosophies is that I need to think 'outside the envelope' and consider creative alternatives. I'm looking for materials who could do the job and not necessarily those prescribed by standards. Being in the middle of nowhere in Brazil prevents me having the luxury of calling United or any other suppliers for an overnight delivery of stuff I need. Although I use Lineco Wood Sealing Tape, there is only ONE supplier in all of Brazil, and the price is about 3 times more.

It appears by your above response, you are not too familiar with acrylic polymer. Acrylic polymer indeed could be used as a glue as I have done numerous times, but IT IS NOT sticky once dried. The glass or Plexiglass will never stick to it afterwords. As an artist/photographer, I'm comfortable and competent enough to give a consistent even coat to the rabbet and lip. I can guarantee you it is much much easier than applying the Lineco Tape.

I sincerely appreciate your feedback Rob but undoubtedly I'm looking more to learn the viability of acrylic polymer as a sealer instead of: "Why not use something that is known to be acceptable..."
 
Of course Rob is correct; glass and metal are the only gas-impermeable barriers that are practical for framing purposes.

Painted coatings have limitations. They are applied inconsistently, as the thickness of the coating would vary over the entire painted surface. The wooden frame expands and contracts over time. The coating would expand and contract at a different rate than its wood substrate. So it would tend to develop cracks and blisters over time, which would reduce the value of the barrier. A solid, gas-impermeable material, such as the tape Rob mentioned, or lining the rabbet with strips of ordinary glass, would provide a much more complete and durable barrier. Aside from the greater benefit, tape or glass strips would require significantly less labor (time/cost) to apply to rabbet surfaces.

Hi Jim - difficult to deny metal and glass do offer the most impermeable of barriers...this is a given. Probably it would be better for you to consider that I don't have the practical means from where I'm now residing to build the a legitimate '100% conservation frame,' so I'm simply attempting to creatively work around some parameters to see if some good substitutes will be viable. This becomes the reason why I'm looking for a concrete response as to how permeable or resistant to acidity acrylic polymer actually is. Do you actually know yourself or perhaps someone you respect may have the answer?

After using acrylic polymer paints and mediums for nearly 40 years, I could tell you the assumptions you have made about the expansion and contraction of acrylic polymer is not correct. This problem could certainly be attributed to oil paints, gouache, lacquers, or other paints, but not to acrylic. Acrylic remains flexible and it will move along with the changes in temperature and humidity within the wood. So from this point of view Jim, there should be no room for concern. And to echo what I said to Rob, applying this polymer is much easier than applying Lineco tape or having the stapling problems when using glass.
 
I would think it would do more harm than good, the framing package heating up inside would activate the acrylic and make the glass and possibly the matting or whatever stick to the frame. Removing it would likely cause some damage to the mat and or photos, I hope we are talking about matted photos or art and not putting the frame in direct contact with the art.

You have several options
1. Matting the art with with at least 1" away from the inside of the frame, most mats being 3 inches anyways

2. Metal frame and not worry about it at all.

Just because a material has been used for decades does not justify its use in another manner that it was not intended for.

Framing properly can cost money, skimping could cost you much more in the long run!

3. Frame sealing tape.

As I recall there is something you can coat the inside of frame with, but it eludes me...shellac? IDK
 
So you are looking for a creative alternative using materials you are familiar with.
Why not use the acrylic medium (already established as an adhesive, and in my experience easily heat reactivated) and apply strips of aluminum foil to the cheek and shoulder of the rabbet.

Using acrylic polymere as a sealant on wood is considerably different than using it as a final coat or medium in painting. The former would be designed to keep harmful acidic gasses from invading the interior of the frame package as a result of outgassing from the frame. The latter is a physical protective barrier over otherwise porous dried pigment applied to the surface of a porous support (paper or canvas). The fact that the back of the paper or canvas is not sealed in a like manner challenges the notion that the acrylic polymere serves as a protection from acid migration. Keeping acidic migration in check (osmosis) is considerably different than protecting a surface from physical and pollutant damage.

I don't believe you would be doing any harm in using this technique, but I'm not sure of the efficacy vs. the known vapor barrier products.
 
So you are looking for a creative alternative using materials you are familiar with.
Why not use the acrylic medium (already established as an adhesive, and in my experience easily heat reactivated) and apply strips of aluminum foil to the cheek and shoulder of the rabbet.

Using acrylic polymere as a sealant on wood is considerably different than using it as a final coat or medium in painting. The former would be designed to keep harmful acidic gasses from invading the interior of the frame package as a result of outgassing from the frame. The latter is a physical protective barrier over otherwise porous dried pigment applied to the surface of a porous support (paper or canvas). The fact that the back of the paper or canvas is not sealed in a like manner challenges the notion that the acrylic polymere serves as a protection from acid migration. Keeping acidic migration in check (osmosis) is considerably different than protecting a surface from physical and pollutant damage.

I don't believe you would be doing any harm in using this technique, but I'm not sure of the efficacy vs. the known vapor barrier products.

Hi Rick - probably gluing aluminum foil strips to the rabbet and lip would work fine, however, you need to take into account the very quick drying time of acrylic polymer which would make this process rather difficult since it requires a high degree of accuracy. I would think the thickness of this foil also could be a dilemma since it tends to rip quite easily, giving no tolerance for repositioning.

I fully realize using polymer medium on top of a painting surface is different than applying it to a wooden frame. The point I was trying to make is that polymer obviously offers a significant barrier which keeps pollutants from damaging the art. Secondly, when polymer medium is used on paper based acrylic paintings, the art work is completely sealed within a frame and glass. The polymer which is now trapped in that frame apparently doesn't produce any harmful gasses which would harm the paper. If this was not the case, artists would never be doing this technique and museums would have removed the glass or plexi to prevent any damage. So to clarify my point Rick, acrylic polymer seems to be an adequate barrier against pollutants as history has clearly shown, in addition, until someone in this forum reveals something different, polymer appears to produce no serious outgassing of its own. The part of the puzzle which I need yet to unearth is how efficient would acrylic polymer be in blocking the outgassing and acid migration of wood?

Thanks for your ideas!
 
Glad you made up your mind, good luck. Check back in 100 years.
 
I'm currently leaving in Brazil, where all mouldings are made of TREATED pine or eucalyptus against termites and a little demon called 'wood broca.' Although it is difficult for me to test the actual amount of outgassing, I would imagine to be sufficient to be a serious problem. wood?

It appears by your above response, you are not too familiar with acrylic polymer. Acrylic polymer indeed could be used as a glue as I have done numerous times, but IT IS NOT sticky once dried. The glass or Plexiglass will never stick to it afterwords. As an artist/photographer, I'm comfortable and competent enough to give a consistent even coat to the rabbet and lip. I can guarantee you it is much much easier than applying the Lineco Tape.

Gil- Thanks for explaining that the outgassing you are concerned with is something the moulding has been treated with and not a natural byproduct of the wood itself. However, again I ask you what effects you feel the outgassing will create and are you as concerned with the innate properties of the wood as well or just the potential effects of a fumigate?

I think the “broca” you referred to is a wood boring beetle that we in the US call a powderpost beetle. Almost all imported wood moulding (from Brazil and elsewhere) is fumigated (and it sometimes the fumigation doesn’t work but that is a different thread :)). I think your concerns should be more from the innate properties of wood itself as the fumigate should have long dissipated.

With all due respect to all artists who use acrylic, it is a well documented fact that the alleged "protective" benefits of acrylic media have been proven to be problematic for conservators, especially when attempting to "clean" modern paintings. It is not easily soluble, traps dirt in micro craters in the surface of the medium and is not easily renewed like varnish on an oil based painting. In fact, if most paintings from the 60's and 70's had been framed behind glass - they would be in much better condition than they are today. An oil based painting created in the same time period and varnished could be cleaned and restored much more easily where the unglazed acrylic painting could not. Your comment "The point I was trying to make is that polymer obviously offers a significant barrier which keeps pollutants from damaging the art" is utter nonsense. Proof? A significant barrier would be glass.

What kind of photography are you doing? Digital output (inkjet prints) require different considerations for protection than silver based photography and the effects of the alleged outgassing may manifest themselves differently on each type of photography. Conventional color photography also has different considerations. The use of a matboard buffered with calcium carbonate may be inappropriate for some types of photography but not for others.

In addition to sealing the rabbet, you may also want to give serious consideration to the use of mats and backing that contain molecular traps (zeolites) as they offer the only KNOWN practical active protection from atmospheric pollutants. Yes they may cost a bit more.......but you raised the "preservation" banner. Merely sealing the rabbet of a frame is of little purpose if the other considerations of an appropriate framing package are not considered. In fact, using a complete matting of a front and back mat and also filler board/s that contain zeolites may be more beneficial than any rabbet sealing you might do.

I don't want to play "DYKWIA" with you - but I may be one of those people that Jim Miller (and others) may respect :)

I can assure you that I am quite familiar with acrylic polymers and know for a fact that acrylic is not an impermeable medium. Are you aware that acrylic glazing is porous and that if you were to seal a piece of acrylic completely to a framing package with an impermeable membrane such as Marvelseal on the back, that the acrylic would allow moisture to enter the package? If water molecules can pass through 1/8" thick acrylic glazing, do you think that the vapor from the fumigant might pass through a significantly thinner, brushed on medium as well? (Even Epson only warrants the longevity of their inks when “framed under glass”. This is because acrylic will allow ozone to pass through and ozone is the primary cause of fading in inkjet prints.)

I stand by my experience and as others have posted, if acrylic medium is painted to the interior lip of a frame, that it can reactivate itself even after it is dried by thermal conductivity and the pressure of the fitting staples is more than enough to provide a bond between the glass and the moulding. And, as others have noted, should matting or artwork slip to the bottom of the rabbet, it is also possible that the edge of the mat or artwork could glue itself to the interior of the frame. For this reason alone I do not recommend using it as a sealer.

I also appreciate the fact the Lineco tape is more expensive and that you need to think outside the box. There are only two practical things that will do what you need to do - glass and metal. The suggestion of using acrylic medium to adhere aluminum foil to the interior is a good one and it should provide the protection you need. There are thicker aluminum foils that may be easier to work with (even our grocery stores have a "heavy duty" foil). Acrylic medium can be reactivated with heat. If it dries, the use of a warm tacking iron will cause any foil to stick to it. Don't knock it until you've tried it. But again, why reinvent the wheel? The Lineco tape may be more expensive, but it works. I would reiterate that just sealing the rabbet might not be enough.

What I find amusing is that you have come to a professional forum of people who make a living framing pictures and who are also educators and recognized industry leaders and when you do not hear anyone agreeing with you - you are dismissive. ACRYLIC MEDIUM is NOT an appropriate barrier for use in frame interiors. If it were, those writing the guidelines for framing works of art on paper would have suggested its use.

I am also interested in your response to Jim Miller re: " how permeable or resistant to acidity acrylic polymer actually is."

Initially you were concerned with outgassing. Now it is acidity. What about alkalinity (you said photography was being framed). How about sulfur dioxide?

I acknowledge your limitations of materials availability and the need to be practical - but what is more beneficial- sealing the rabbet and using inappropriate matting? Using the appropriate matting but not UV glazing? Using the appropriate matting but backing with corrugated cardboard? Sealing the rabbet but not hanging the framed piece in the appropriate environment with consideration to light, heat, or humidity?

You obviously have already made up your mind that acrylic medium is appropriate for your needs despite industry professionals telling you that it is not. Please don't make me get all Montgomery on you (do a search) :)
 
I think I was totally misunderstood...yeah, certain of it. Wasn't talking about outgassing from the acrylic medium at all...just from the wood, and it seems you have more to worry about with the highly acidic eucalyptus, the aromatic oils and the chemical treatment of the wood for WDO's.

Well, good luck with it.

Oh, and I'm Wally, not Rick.

_____________________________________________________________
Desuetude set in.
 
vapor barriers

Rob and Jim have made it clear that water born synthetic polymers can not be expected to function as vapor barriers. A few polymers, like PVC, do have higher barrier potential, but to be effective, the polymer must have some other component, like the cermaic that impregnates Mitsubishe Escal. Metals are crystalline, due to the metallic bonding of their atoms and thus are effective barriers to gases and they will discourage wood boring insects. Two part coating will also provide better protection, but acrylic dispersions depend on a heavy loading of surfactant to get the polymer into the water and as they dry, their surfaces are pocked with holes and have an accumulation of surfactant that comes out for two weeks after the paint is dry.


Hugh
 
Oops! Sorry Wally for erroneously referring to Rick when replying to your response. I stupidly opted to write back at a time when I was real tired, but again, any excuse becomes more appeasing to the ego then admitting age was probably the real culprit.

My apologies to Rick as well.
 
An excellent resource on artists' materials is:

http://www.amien.org/


Great site! Curious that they do not have a picture framer on their panels, yet dispense framing advice.....

Nonetheless a site to bookmark and for framers to read on a regular basis if only to learn more about art materials

Thanks for sharing it..
 
Hi again Rob- let me assure you, as well as everyone else who has responded, I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND, and certainly, I joined this forum with the sole intention of learning more about framing since I have always been fascinated by the exchanges in The Grumble. If somehow my words resonated the impression that "I know better," it was simply not my intention. All my life I searched for answers which came along with reasonable explanations. If a doctor tells me to use a certain medication, I want to first know why and the side effects. The same applies to the initial answers provided in this forum. Simply disclosing metal and glass are the only materials one should use did not provide an appropriate answer to my specific question. After all, when and who came up with the idea of using metal and glass inside frames? Someone originated these ideas by thinking 'outside the box. ' I was only trying to find out if any member had actually tried acrylic polymer before, if not, why?

My worries about the treated wood is one of arising from logic, however, I have never claimed to be interested in creating a bona-fide conservation package the way most of you normally aim for. As an artist/photographer, I produce works for exhibitions, most of them for 'one-man' shows. When it comes to photography, my sole intention is to frame images which hopefully last several decades but not necessarily centuries. To answer one of your questions, I do use Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks. These inks are used on a variety of fine art papers, some of them 100% cotton rag while others are not. Equally, I strictly use Rising Museum 100% cotton-rag for the mat and the same for the back-board, or at times, foam boards with pH neutral surfaces. The filler board is corrugated plastic and the backing paper is Tyvek while the front glazing is acrylic not glass. According to experts on ink-jet print aging, the combination of the K3 inks and whatever type of paper I use, should yield a life expectancy between 50 - 100 years for each print. Of course and as you all well know, it not only depends on how I prepare my framed packages for sale, but also on how the client buying my work handles and displays such work at home. Because of this reason alone, I'm not preoccupied with making my prints last 200 years. At the cusp of everything, the complications of being in very humid Brazil simply does not make for the best of 'conservation' environments. Additionally, and at the risk of sounding as if making excuses, many of the conservation products available in the USA are simply not obtainable here, so I have to bite the bullet and use what is available. There is not such thing as "thicker aluminum foil," the one sold here is much thinner than Reynolds. Likewise, there is no UV Plexi, nor archival type of corrugated plastic, nor ATG Gold, etc.

Some of the comments you've made are valid Rob, however, some, particularly those referring to the longevity and problems encountered with acrylic paintings, are in my opinion questionable. Those acrylic paintings I did 30 or 40 years ago have remained basically intact and unchanged to date, even after undergoing the ordeal of an ocean journey lasting one month from NJ to Brazil and being inside extremely hot and dusty shipping containers. So as far as your question... "Proof," I can only rely on my extensive experience in working with this medium which I can assure you is vast. The fact that glass, according to you, offers the only real protection, would not only forfeit the valid opinion of any major artist or museum curator who continues to exhibit acrylic based work without glass, but also would nullify the intrinsic purpose of how those works were meant to be presented, a great number of them, without a frame at all.

As we all know, anyone who choses to represent themselves has a fool for a lawyer while those who talk about their self-importance have a rathered troubled ego. Suffice to say, my qualifications as a framer are very limited in comparison to yours, conversely, my professionalism in my fields of expertise could be easily verified by a quick Google search.

Thanks again for the time spent on your detailed explanation. I sincerely appreciate it.

P.S. The Brazilian wood broca is not a beetle, but rather, an insect so small one rarely gets to see them. They pulverize the lighter colored wood almost into to a 'flour' like consistency. Terrible little buggers.
 
I'd think that a wood sealing polyurethane or marine varnish would be less permeable than an acrylic medium, and would likely be cheaper as well.
 
P.S. The Brazilian wood broca is not a beetle, but rather, an insect so small one rarely gets to see them. They pulverize the lighter colored wood almost into to a 'flour' like consistency. Terrible little buggers.

Powder Post Beetles are about the same diameter as a 18-20 guage wire brad and about 1/4" long. Their leavings are called fras and are a very fine powder, hence the name. They rarely come out of the wood.
Broca translates roughly to borer or drill bit. I'm no entemologist, but if it isn't the same it is awfully similar in size and characteristics.
 
... I'm looking for a concrete response as to how permeable or resistant to acidity acrylic polymer actually is. Do you actually know yourself or perhaps someone you respect may have the answer?

I do not know anyone who considers acrylic medium to be a barrier material. In preservation framing, the differences between slightly permeable, moderately permeable, and very permeable are moot. The only operative difference would be the time required for a given contaminant to permeate the layer. And, since the layer would be inconsistently applied, any answer would be misleading. Even if you knew that a .003 thick layer of acrylic polymer would resist contaminant ABC for X years, you would not know whether your painting of the rabbet was equal to the layer specified in the test.

Let's not confuse a barrier with a filter. Acrylic polymer might provide a better filter of contaminants than, say, 4-ply board, but it would not be equal to polyester film, strips of solid-sheet acrylic, or any real, gas impermeable barrier of glass or metal. Such filtering layers would slow the penetration of contaminants for some time, but it would not pass as a gas impermeable barrier.

...Those acrylic paintings I did 30 or 40 years ago have remained basically intact and unchanged to date...

...Have you conducted scientific testing, or are you speaking of appearances? After a few decades of open air exposure, an acrylic painting would surely accumulate some soil. Cleaning, an invasive process, probably would result in permanent change to the acrylic paint. So, this statement seems risky:

The fact that glass, according to you, offers the only real protection, would not only forfeit the valid opinion of any major artist or museum curator who continues to exhibit acrylic based work without glass...
There is no question that solid glazing, whether glass or acrylic, would provide better protection than leaving the paint exposed to changing environmental conditions. The value of glazing paintings is well known to conservators, curators, and some artists, and has been discussed at length on this forum. If you have not enjoyed those discussions yet, I suggest you search the archives.

...but also would nullify the intrinsic purpose of how those works were meant to be presented, a great number of them, without a frame at all.
Intrinsic purpose? Of course the artist can make more paintings, but for those who care enough to buy and display paintings, "intrinsic purpose" might be less important than preserving a treasured image for the long term.

In careful illumination, optically coated glass or acrylic would be nearly invisible, and would keep the image clean and protected indefinitely. But without glazing, on the other hand, the image would be irreparably changed with its deterioration over time.

If the intrinsic purpose is to enjoy it for a while, leave it exposed. But if keeping the image intact for a long time is important, the best option is to glaze it.
 
hey Gil,
First, welcome to the Picture Framer's Grumble.

and excuse me if I come across a bit crusty, because you don't know me from Atom Ant...
but I do know you. We both started selling stock photos at about the same time......
only I bailed in the late 1980s when it all went south.

I don't know how you stumbled on this forum, but it really doesn't matter; what does,
is that you have a qualified value of the information you are getting.

Just as if I was going to go shoot the elephants in Namibia or re-shoot the mountain
Gorillas in Rhwanda, I would want your advice on things that you have infinitely more
experience and knowledge about then most people. True? True. (BTW... I love the
haunting images you did with the elephants years ago.....
I use that "feeling" in a few of my writings to this day.)

So... on to the matter at hand:

Rob Markoff, was teaching classes as a nationally recognized leader in the industry,
when you sold your first image out of your first Leica. Take what he says as gospel.
He has processed more art over his career then Kodak had moments.
His perspective is f16 with ASA 20 - - amazing depth of field, and ultra fine detail.

Jim Miller is an anal retentive engineer about things, and although may not have the
scientific testing at his finger tips, does have the input from those that do.

Hugh Phibbs. . . Humm how to characterize Hugh? Hugh is THE authority about all
things preservation, conservation and museum. By any sane law, his post should be
a thread killer; but those that don't know who he is... blithely continue to blabber their ignorance . . .

Me... just a washed up old Canon fodder, that spends his days hacking up chunks
of trees in the Pacific North woods . . . and occasionally screeds a word or three.

as for the Boca.... in Rwanda they were jet black and about 22" from tail to end of antenna,
in Costa Rica they are only about 5" blacks, in Los Angeles they are 1-2" and brown, and in
New York they mug small dogs and babys for their food...... but they are all called La Cocaroacha.

As for acrylic being permeable..... talk to any museum of modern art.... they can't clean the acrylics
and the dirt is starting to degrade the elastodynamics because they have been dried from the
in-bedded dust. The Mona Lisa will out live the Pollacks and Lichtenstein's.

Gil, keep up the great image making...... but put it under glass with wide rag mats and forget the
sealing of the rabbets..... unless you take up these framer's advise or start leafing the rabbet.
 
Jim - all your points are certainly well taken and want you to realize there is no real strong disagreement about anything stated, just different reasoning.

The art world is rather complex, not only in reference to the types of work produced, but also regarding the individual philosophies adopted by each artist. What a work of art is or should be, or how and where it should be displayed, or even how long the experience should last, become pre-planned entities with limited input from the external world. Surely, all of us would agree paintings are better preserved behind glass or acrylic glazing, equally, the unprotected surfaces of acrylic paintings become targets to the punishment of elements after a prolonged time (even if my paintings continue to look good). Notwithstanding Jim, artists unlike scientists, do not necessarily conform to guidelines simply because something has been proven to be better. First and foremost, the grease which provides the forward movement to the wheels of art is usually aesthetics and/or impact. The intended aesthetic or impact within many modern art works could be seriously hampered if folks were to intervene and began adding glazing just for the sake of offering protection. There are plenty of modern art pieces which simply be deprived of their appeal or uniqueness if private collectors or curators started adding glazing. For instance, now-a-days there are numerous artists producing 3-D paintings, meaning, the presence of painted surfaces in various directions. Also there are paintings where the work on the front is continued to all four sides and those sides could be 10” or thicker; there are singular pieces of canvas hanging and supported by wires and containing imagery on front as well as the back; there are paintings which do not hang perpendicular; there are paintings with non-geometrical boundaries; there are paintings 10 yards wide by 4 yards tall; there are paintings which have additional pieces of canvas or other materials loosely attached to purposely move with the presence of wind; and moving closer to home, I’m currently doing a 10 foot tall acrylic painting stretched over large circumference PVC pipes and those large circular sides become an extension of the painting. If you care to visualize all these different examples Jim, what would be your personal conclusion: “I wish these works had been created behind glazing,” or perhaps, “who cares about glazing...what an exciting and fresh approach to presenting ideas?” Your honest response will reveal if you embrace art for ‘art sake,’ or view all this unprotected art as a volume of works from artists with a serious shortsightedness about the future.

Allow me to go back for a minute to my original query while also coming to terms that my idea in using acrylic polymer will have to be put on the sidelines until Rob tries it and gives me the thumbs up. 1) Even if I continue to use the Lineco tape, or manage to get my hands on thick aluminum foil to glue to the rabbet and lip, I still have to secure my frame package with my point driver. How does acidity migration, or even the outgassing from the treated wood, be prevented from entering through those little tiny holes made by the points? 2) As far as I know, these points are not made of stainless steel so eventually they may rust (particularly leaving by the ocean as I do) - what type of damage could be expected from this rusting? 3) How long should one expect 100% cotton rag mat boards to remain unaffected by acidity if the package is ideally put together? What about in a humid environment? Or, when the package contains non-archival corrugated plastic for fillers and acidic ATG tape? I fully realize you cannot provide an unequivocal response, but it will help tremendously to have an educated estimate.

Much appreciated.
 
Hi Baer!

Thank you so much for remembering me, my images and the added complements. I honestly feel horrible in admitting not knowing who you are or even how and where we met. Since I’m sure no one wants their email address posted on this forum, please let me know if there is a way we could exchange this information since I’m knew here.

Although you probably did not mean it verbatim, one of my sponsors may get upset if they read your response and I keep quiet. Although Leica offers great photographic gear, I have always used and trusted Nikon.

I do appreciate your detailed exposé on the personalities of some forum members. The deep knowledge and understanding displayed by folks like Jim, Rob, Hugh and many others, became my primary reason for joining this group. I do sincerely respect their opinion immensely. In a way, I’m doing to them what people normally do to me when I lecture, probe probe probe until a question has been satisfactorily answered. It is obvious my questioning process has arisen a certain amount of anger from some, as evidence by several sarcastic replies. I view this form of sarcasm as a contribution from those who have never stepped out of their own paradigmatic ways. I much prefer digging out bona-fide answers to my questions than allowing adopted ‘standards’ to dismiss untravelled roads without viable explanations or even previous experiences.

It appears by your response you know very little about me except for my stock photography, and in reality this aspect is but a small pie of my life’s circle. I personally find it inappropriate Baer to use this space to toot my own horn but in this particular case I’m forced to go there to lay out the foundation from which I’m guiding my comments about acrylic paintings and disputing some remarks from our esteemed membership. My degrees are in Fine Arts and I started painting on canvas at the age of 13 (I’m now 61). By the time I got to 24 I was already judging national art competitions, in several occasions, my own college professors where the ones I was judging. Was also a professor of art and photography for many years and was the director of two art galleries. My work has been displayed in numerous galleries and museums around the the US and the globe while some hang in their private collections. Fortunate enough to have been a past nominee to the Tiffany Foundation Grant and many other awards...and so on and so on and so on. Not sure if in the eyes of this forum I’m now qualified enough to question some of the responses regarding acrylic polymer or art as a whole, but such evaluation is out of my hands.

Undeniably, I know zilch about the science end of things, thus I’m not prepared to discount any of the explanations some have provided from that perspective. However, Rob had mentioned acrylic medium could be reactivated or softened when heated, something I seriously questioned although I never tried. Yesterday morning I began doing some tests to find how credible this assertion was. I began by gluing together two pieces of canvas with acrylic polymer as well as aluminum foil onto wood. Additionally, I brushed on acrylic polymer on a separate piece of canvas. Let everything dried for nearly 24 hours (so no one complains) and this morning I took out my heavy duty Bienfang tack iron and dialed the heat to maximum. Even at this extreme heat and even putting downward pressure for 20 - 40 seconds, the polymer never softened sufficiently to separate the two pieces of canvas. The foil simply ripped when I tried to lift it and the acrylic polymer brushed on the singular piece of canvas refused to stick to another unprimed fibered piece or even to paper. I have no idea what temperature the tack-iron yields at maximum (I’m sure some may know), however, it is safe to conclude that if the extreme heat of this tack iron was not sufficient to create a sticky surface, neither the glazing nor the package will get adhered to the rabbet or lip if using acrylic polymer as a wood sealer. Certainly the skeptical could run his/her own test.

Thanks a million for your friendly input and I can assure you I’m not always this serious.
 
Powder Post Beetles are about the same diameter as a 18-20 guage wire brad and about 1/4" long. Their leavings are called fras and are a very fine powder, hence the name. They rarely come out of the wood.
Broca translates roughly to borer or drill bit. I'm no entemologist, but if it isn't the same it is awfully similar in size and characteristics.

Hi Wally - I'm sure you are correct and we are both referring to the same type of boring insect, however, the variety we have here in the northeast of Brazil appears to be much smaller. When I disclosed earlier that it is very difficult to see them, I wasn't exaggerating. The boring diameter they make on compensated wood is no larger than a grain of salt, possibly some could reach 1 mm. In view of this, I would think any 1/4" insect would have trouble passing through such small holes. I did surf the Brazilian net in search of physical description about this creature, but could not find anything. Needless to say, the size broca you are describing could certainly exist in other parts of this huge country.
 
Hi Gil. I don't think your experiment was quite correct but be that as it may, it's easy enough to go to the manufacturers for technical information. For instance, go to Liquitex & see what they have to say & then decide what to do. http://www.liquitex.com/educational/VarnishingLiquitex.pdf the gist is that mediums are porous, varnishes are are not ( for all practical purposes) While sealing frame rabbits are not their intended purpose I'd say a solvent based acrylic resin varnish would be more appropriate than water based. I think if you read that pdf you'll see what I mean. Shellac would be another option type too. Neither is perfect & as others have pointed out wouldn't hold up to todays conservation standards. On the other hand at one time this was a common practice.
 
...If you care to visualize all these different examples Jim, what would be your personal conclusion: “I wish these works had been created behind glazing,” or perhaps, “who cares about glazing...what an exciting and fresh approach to presenting ideas?” Your honest response will reveal if you embrace art for ‘art sake,’ or view all this unprotected art as a volume of works from artists with a serious shortsightedness about the future.
I believe the difference is a matter of perspective. Artists focus on the creation of the art, and when it is finished, they move on to the next creative project. At that point, their creations might represent little more than an income source, and it seems most artists have little concern for the preservation of their art.

The people who collect and appreciate art want it to endure. Their perspective is on the enjoyment of it, not the creation of it. Preservation is a big deal for them. The problem is that collectors listen to artists who say their art does not need to be preserved, that it is durable enough as-is. But it isn't, which might explain why very old paintings are in such demand - because they are rare.

The intended aesthetic or impact within many modern art works could be seriously hampered if folks were to intervene and began adding glazing just for the sake of offering protection.
We disagree. Optically coated glass or acrylic is nearly invisible in proper ligting. "The intended aesthetic or impact" would not be "seriously hampered" as you suggest.
 
Hi Gil. I don't think your experiment was quite correct but be that as it may, it's easy enough to go to the manufacturers for technical information. For instance, go to Liquitex & see what they have to say & then decide what to do. http://www.liquitex.com/educational/VarnishingLiquitex.pdf the gist is that mediums are porous, varnishes are are not ( for all practical purposes) While sealing frame rabbits are not their intended purpose I'd say a solvent based acrylic resin varnish would be more appropriate than water based. I think if you read that pdf you'll see what I mean. Shellac would be another option type too. Neither is perfect & as others have pointed out wouldn't hold up to todays conservation standards. On the other hand at one time this was a common practice.

Hi Terry!
Thank you so much for your input. You probably didn’t get the opportunity to peruse my latest responses to other members where I reveal a little bit about my artistic career. If you wish, go back and bore yourself, but if that is inconvenient, I will tell you a bit more. I have been working with Liquitex products for 43 years. My studio cabinets are stocked with a sizable assortment of Liquitex goods, including polymer and resin varnishes. Funny enough Terry, pay close attention to the PDF link you asked me to browse, you will notice the illustration on the frontal page has a photo of Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish. That’s right Terry, gloss medium is also a varnish, thus if the ‘medium’ part is porous, the ‘varnish’ part has to be as well. Conversely, Liquitex resin varnishes (Soluvar), produce very toxic fumes and need to be applied in extremely well ventilated areas. When I use this product I do it outdoors. The strong fumes became the reason for never considering this product as a frame sealing substance, I would think the outgassing could be even a bigger problem than the porosity you and others are asserting from the water based mediums. By the way Terry, the painting showcased beneath that bottle of Liquitex Gloss Medium was done by a good friend, Bob Anderson, who also lectures on behalf of Liquitex.

I almost forgot to react to your comment on my polymer heating test. It should be rather easy for anyone else to try, including you. Just find yourself anyone who paints with acrylics and ask them just for enough medium to do the experiment. If and when you get a different result, just let me know how you did it. Who knows, maybe acrylic polymer re-softens and looses the grip with heat in the Northern Hemisphere, but being in Brazil, I may need to use ice instead!
 
I believe the difference is a matter of perspective. Artists focus on the creation of the art, and when it is finished, they move on to the next creative project. At that point, their creations might represent little more than an income source, and it seems most artists have little concern for the preservation of their art.

With all due respect Jim, you could not be any further from the truth. I have an anal retentive personality, a perfectionist of such extreme, that I would use a ‘000’ sable brush to paint every single hair found in those humans I used for models. My mural sized photo surrealistic paintings used to take 6 months to a year to complete, and the style I'm presently doing is even more time consuming. The 10' piece I have been painting will probably take me another 7 months, plus the seven I have already spent. Do you honestly believe I don't care about preserving my work? I not only ‘baby’ my paintings but also give them a finishing varnish to preserve them for as long as humanly possible. Not all work done with acrylics is a ‘white canvas with a red dot,’ which is probably the type of art you have in mind. For those of us who do labor intensive techniques, as well as for those who don’t, your assessment dismisses altogether the reality that most artists indeed sit back to relish their creations.

The people who collect and appreciate art want it to endure. Their perspective is on the enjoyment of it, not the creation of it. Preservation is a big deal for them. The problem is that collectors listen to artists who say their art does not need to be preserved, that it is durable enough as-is. But it isn't, which might explain why very old paintings are in such demand - because they are rare.

Once again Jim, not sure where you are getting this idea about artists only interested in creating their work and caring the least what happens afterwards. This is totally erroneous - where are you getting this philosophy from? A more correct perspective about this scenario is that most collectors buy work not only because they like it, but more importantly, as a valuable investment. The collector has everything to gain by keeping such work in impeccable mint condition so the value increases in case they decide to sell it later, just as any other form of collectable. Conversely, most artist don’t fret about this obsession, we just make our creations and then allow the buyer to make their own decision on how best to preserve it.

We disagree. Optically coated glass or acrylic is nearly invisible in proper ligting. "The intended aesthetic or impact" would not be "seriously hampered" as you suggest.

You are taking this quote completely out of context Jim. Just go back to the paragraph where I wrote this, and then follow the text. I clearly gave you samples as to the types of works which will be unsuitable for glazing due to their peculiar physical properties or because of artistic intentions. After all, how would you add glazing to a round surface?

You are correct on the fact that properly coated glazing is “nearly invisible in proper lighting,” but that in itself is the catch Jim. What artist has the privilege of having a working studio with “proper lighting” for every single work they place behind glazing, particularly large pieces? Surely, we normally have ample lighting, either from large windows facing the north or bright ‘daylight balanced’ fluorescent bulbs. Both of these situations offer plenty of light for working, but it could never be qualified as “proper lighting" for exhibiting pieces behind glass. One would certainly end up with a multitude of annoying reflections which surely hamper the viewing experience of any client. Most respectable galleries do offer 'fair' lighting for controlling reflections, but here again Jim, not necessarily great, after all, to obtain the "proper lighting" you are mentioning, the illuminating lights would need to have the ability to move sideways, back and forwards, go up and down, and also be able to control the angle of view from wide to tele. Don’t forget, most galleries show a variance of styles and sizes, so this flexibility needs to exist. Since most galleries only have fixed lights, or track lighting, it becomes basically impossible to do total justice to every glazed piece, particularly with larger works. Museums may have the financial means to have “proper lighting” (although most of the larger paintings continue to be exhibited unglazed) and collectors could certainly place one or more lights anywhere they please to illuminate the work perfectly. As for artist, especially those of us exhibiting on a regular basis, glazing any large piece could be a serious detriment, and certainly an overly frustrating nightmare at many galleries and museums.

Quite possibly I’m writing too much and you simply forgot to answers the questions I had asked you previously. When you get the opportunity, I sincerely appreciate your knowleagable feedback on those previously asked questions found below:

Allow me to go back for a minute to my original query while also coming to terms that my idea in using acrylic polymer will have to be put on the sidelines until Rob tries it and gives me the thumbs up. 1) Even if I continue to use the Lineco tape, or manage to get my hands on thick aluminum foil to glue to the rabbet and lip, I still have to secure my frame package with my point driver. How does acidity migration, or even the outgassing from the treated wood, be prevented from entering through those little tiny holes made by the points? 2) As far as I know, these points are not made of stainless steel so eventually they may rust (particularly leaving by the ocean as I do) - what type of damage could be expected from this rusting? 3) How long should one expect 100% cotton rag mat boards to remain unaffected by acidity if the package is ideally put together? What about in a humid environment? Or, when the package contains non-archival corrugated plastic for fillers and acidic ATG tape? I fully realize you cannot provide an unequivocal response, but it will help tremendously to have an educated estimate.

Thanks again Jim!
 
...a perfectionist of such extreme, that I would use a ‘000’ sable brush to paint every single hair...paintings used to take 6 months to a year to complete...the style I'm presently doing...will probably take me another 7 months, plus the seven I have already spent...
Yes, you seem to be very concerned about the perfect creation of your artworks. Good for you.
...I not only ‘baby’ my paintings but also give them a finishing varnish to preserve them for as long as humanly possible.
Perhaps that sort of comment is how I got the idea that artists care more about the creation of their artworks that the preservtion of them. Varnish will not preserve a painting "for as long as humanly possible". Varnish is poor protection, compared to any solid glazing. Must long-term preservation take a back seat to short-term aesthetics?

You say this:
...not sure where you are getting this idea about artists only interested in creating their work and caring the least what happens afterwards...
And then you say this:
...The collector has everything to gain by keeping such work in impeccable mint condition...Conversely, most artist don’t fret about this obsession, we just make our creations and then allow the buyer to make their own decision on how best to preserve it.
Yes, that pretty much matches my perception.

You are correct on the fact that properly coated glazing is “nearly invisible in proper lighting”... What artist has the privilege of having a working studio with “proper lighting”...?
I was referring to illumination of the display location, not the production location.

...Museums may have the financial means to have “proper lighting”...and collectors could certainly place one or more lights anywhere they please to illuminate the work perfectly.
Yes, and that is why optically coated glazing works so well in the display of framed art.
 
...When you get the opportunity, I sincerely appreciate your knowleagable feedback on those previously asked questions found below:

1) Even if I continue to use the Lineco tape, or manage to get my hands on thick aluminum foil to glue to the rabbet and lip, I still have to secure my frame package with my point driver. How does acidity migration, or even the outgassing from the treated wood, be prevented from entering through those little tiny holes made by the points?
You do not have to secure the frame with a point driver. You can avoid violating the seal by using surface-mounted fasteners such as turnbuttons, mending plates, or offset clips.

Even if you choose to fit your frames using a point driver, the tiny holes would be filled by the tiny points that made them, so the exposed area of migration would be even more tiny than the holes. That would be better than using a painted coating, which would not only allow gasses to permeate over time, but it would also be perforated by those tiny holes.

2) As far as I know, these points are not made of stainless steel so eventually they may rust (particularly leaving by the ocean as I do) - what type of damage could be expected from this rusting?
The points are coated, and are not prone to corrosion in normally-closed framing. But even if the points became corroded, due to extreme moisture exposure, I believe the stain would remain local to the metal and would not offgas or migrate. If the frame were exposed to so much moisture that the corrosion could be carried into the art paper, then the damage of that corrosion would be incidental to more serious problems.

3) How long should one expect 100% cotton rag mat boards to remain unaffected by acidity if the package is ideally put together?
Cotton fibers are inherently more resistant to acid than purified pulp, but boards made of any alpha cellulose fibers, especially if buffered, should indefinitely remain free of acid in harmful levels.

...What about in a humid environment? Or, when the package contains non-archival corrugated plastic for fillers and acidic ATG tape?

A properly-closed frame would resist damage from short-term periods of high humidity, as the rate of change inside the frame would be slow.

For display in an area of constant high humidity, I would recommend conditioning the environment to limit the humidity, such as placing dehumidification equipment in a climate-controlled interior room. Failing that, a completely sealed frame would provide the best protection, but it still would not be an ideal solution, because the seals would require monitoring and maintenance.

An effective desiccant, properly conditioned and sealed inside a normally-closed frame, would tend to regulate the humidity within the enclosure. However, there is a danger that the desiccant could become saturated over time, which would defeat its purpose.
 
Allow me to go back for a minute to my original query while also coming to terms that my idea in using acrylic polymer will have to be put on the sidelines until Rob tries it and gives me the thumbs up.

Never going to happen. I don't know what other experts you need to consult, but if you do not trust Hugh Phibbs there is noting more I can add. Acrylic Polymer will never be an acceptable vapor barrier.

1) Even if I continue to use the Lineco tape, or manage to get my hands on thick aluminum foil to glue to the rabbet and lip, I still have to secure my frame package with my point driver. How does acidity migration, or even the outgassing from the treated wood, be prevented from entering through those little tiny holes made by the points?

Again, Gil - what is this "outgassing" you seem so concerned with and what is the effect you perceive it will have on your art? If your art is properly matted with sufficient space from the edge of the art to the interior of the frame, what is it that you are worried about?

I find it ironic that you are using Rising 100% rag (which in the US is a premium product and far more expensive than many alternative mat products) yet "complain" that Lineco Tape (while available in Brazil) is too expensive?

I you use a proper back mat and also adequate filler boards, I am not sure you need to worry about something getting out of the holes caused by fitting points or staples. Again, I am trying to understand your logic. Do you feel that the wood is somehow pressurized and by "puncturing" it with a fitting staple or framer's point that gas or some form of acid will leak out?

2) As far as I know, these points are not made of stainless steel so eventually they may rust (particularly leaving by the ocean as I do) - what type of damage could be expected from this rusting?

If rust is a concern, you should look to fitting staples made from Monel. As I know there are boats in Barzil, there are bound to be marine suppliers who have fitting staples made from Monel. I live and work at the beach and have framed hundreds if not thousands of pieces displayed in homes adjacent to the ocean. It has never bee a problem for me (or my customers). If you have a proper backing behind the art and adequate filler board(s) then any rusting staple should not really be a concern.

3) How long should one expect 100% cotton rag mat boards to remain unaffected by acidity if the package is ideally put together? What about in a humid environment? Or, when the package contains non-archival corrugated plastic for fillers and acidic ATG tape? I fully realize you cannot provide an unequivocal response, but it will help tremendously to have an educated estimate.

Are your rag boards buffered with CACO3? (Calcium Carbonate) - Most rag boards have an alkaline buffer to offset environmental acidity. That is why in my first response I asked what you are matting and if an alkaline buffer was detrimental to the type of photography you are matting. I can't speak to the environments you are displaying the artwork in, but I will tell you that artwork displayed behind glass will have a longer potential of environmental resistance to atmospheric pollutants than ones framed behind acrylic. I cannot tell you a specific length of time without more details about what you are matting and the environment the piece is displayed in. I am confident that most conservation grade matting has an alkaline reserve that will last for years.

You gave me no response to my suggestion for the use of mats that contain zeolites. In all reality, if you were to use those types of mats, a majority of your worries re: atmospheric pollutants (acid migration, outgassing etc.) would be moot. Even if "non archival corrugated plastic" is used as a filler board. What are you calling "non archival? Most fluted polypropylene would be perfectly adequate as a filler board even if it is not labeled as "archival grade." What is in the board you are using that you feel makes it undesirable?

Re: Your test for the reactivation of acrylic medium with heat- I can assure you that I, Jim Miller and dozens of others have had excellent success with this process. Merely applying some to a piece of canvas and seeing if it will restick isn't a proper test. Same for trying to remove" foil from the adhesive. We are talking about the application of foil not the removal.

Have you actually tried "leafing" the interior of a rabbet (as Baer suggested) using the acrylic medium? Gold leaf is significantly thinner than any aluminum foil you could ever buy (so much so that it will dissolve when touched with a human hand). I really think it is your technique of application that is causing you so much trouble.

With all due respect, any competent picture framer (and I really think you can do it too) could "leaf" the interior of a frame rabbet with aluminum foil. Are you trying to apply long thin strips of the foil like a "tape". That is probably a big part of your problem. You should be applying the foil as one would do to "leaf" a frame - in small, overlapping sheets. Allow the pieces to overhang the top and lip of your frame and trim only after the medium has thoroughly dried. Again - what is your time worth? Couldn't you be making one more print, creating one more painting or doing something revenue producing with your time that would more than offset the cost of a roll of Lineco tape that does what it is supposed to do?
 
, you will notice the illustration on the frontal page has a photo of Liquitex Gloss Medium & Varnish. That’s right Terry, gloss medium is also a varnish, thus if the ‘medium’ part is porous, the ‘varnish’ part has to be as well.

That is correct. The product labeled only as varnish is denser & less "porous" if you will. It's all a matter of degree. We've all been in the biz a long time Gil. I've been working with acrylic myself as well as retailing artists materials & picture framing for well over 30 years. I know I've seen my acrylics stick to plenty of things, each other included. I think it's pressure over a long period that is a big factor. But why care if the glass sticks to the rabbet? Is that what that's about? Posts are too long. Yes, I just skim them. If that's really a worry you could just seal the side wall, the glass will seal the front. Anyway, just got off the phone with Liquitex tech. His best reccomendation for sealing wood was a coat of Kilz. Haha, go figure. I think tape is the best bet but you said you can or can't get it? Time to open the shop. Later
 
Honestly, I don't get the point of this whole discussion. Lineco frame sealing tape does a great job at this specific task. Although it does cost money, it is very economical when purchased in the large roll, which lasts a long time. Furthermore, the cost of labor and time to brush on anything to the rabbet would probably far exceed the tape cost. If you are concerned about fitting points punching holes in your sealing tape, you could simply use the tape to seal the glass-mats-art-backings package, and then use your point driver to secure this whole package into the frame. The tape would still be doing its job, but would not have to be punctured. Yes, I realize the adhesive would be facing inward, but it would not be touching the art- plus I believe it is a stable acrylic adhesive anyway.
This should protect your art well, at least until the radiation wafts over here from Japan. Then all bets are off.
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 
Great points Rick, especially the first & last ones. Cost of a roll of Lineco is about the same as 8oz of Liquitex waterbourne varnish. I bet it would be similar coverage but Lineco is faster plus the added advantage of being designed to actually do the job. Win, win.



I think it's the availability factor but I'm not quite sure.
 
Hi Rob - let me post my original quote again:
Allow me to go back for a minute to my original query while also coming to terms that my idea in using acrylic polymer will have to be put on the sidelines until Rob tries it and gives me the thumbs up.

And of course you reply to this:

Never going to happen. I don't know what other experts you need to consult, but if you do not trust Hugh Phibbs there is noting more I can add. Acrylic Polymer will never be an acceptable vapor barrier.

Please believe me...it was a J-O-K-E! After first reading your overwhelming disapproval of my idea, I would never expect for such strong convictions to be revised. When Baer described your personality he never mentioned you were this serious. I truly respect your opinion! There hasn’t been any insistence on my part for using polymer medium as a sealer. Nonetheless, when framers begin to lecture a season painter about the ins and outs of acrylic painting products, or how artists should be displaying their work without taking into consideration the legitimate intentions of those artists, it becomes awfully difficult to keep quiet.

Again, Gil - what is this "outgassing" you seem so concerned with and what is the effect you perceive it will have on your art? If your art is properly matted with sufficient space from the edge of the art to the interior of the frame, what is it that you are worried about?

Although my mat borders vary according to what I’m framing, on average the width is about 5.” Honestly Rob, I have no idea what you and the rest of the experts on this forum consider a safe distance. Probably due to my own ignorance on this subject, I figured the outgassing from the treated pine or eucalyptus would damage the art work in a sealed package if given enough time. Rick’s post (#8) - “That's just as well, since the holes the staples put in the glass would spoil its function as a barrier,” also added to such belief. If I understand you correctly, it appears there is some sort of distance guideline between art work and frame to be safe from outgassing - what is that distance?

I find it ironic that you are using Rising 100% rag (which in the US is a premium product and far more expensive than many alternative mat products) yet "complain" that Lineco Tape (while available in Brazil) is too expensive?

Not ironic at all if you really knew me. When I moved to Brazil five years ago I brought with me sufficient Rising boards to last me a while, and they have. On the other hand, I never purchased Lineco Frame Sealing tape out of stupidity and shortsightedness. When my Rising boards run out I have no idea what I will do. Importing anything into Brazil is a nightmare, the only way around this is to open a corporation with a license to import. Even if this is successful, Brazil has the honor of having the highest import duties and taxes on the globe.

I you use a proper back mat and also adequate filler boards, I am not sure you need to worry about something getting out of the holes caused by fitting points or staples. Again, I am trying to understand your logic. Do you feel that the wood is somehow pressurized and by "puncturing" it with a fitting staple or framer's point that gas or some form of acid will leak out?

It was not a question originating from fear but instead curiosity. And yes, you are totally correct, I was under the impression gasses and acid could indeed penetrate through any tiny hole and contaminate the art work inside.

Are your rag boards buffered with CACO3? (Calcium Carbonate)

If you use Rising Museum 100% cotton rag, then you are much better qualified to know if these boards are buffered with calcium carbonate - I have no idea. In all likelihood Rob, my own home/studio environment is better prepared to handle the difficulties of humidity than 95% of the homes or galleries they will ultimately be going to. As I told you before, I’m now concentrating on framing my Epson Ultrachrome Ink prints. Basically just interested in creating the best frame package I could and with the best materials at my disposal before they go out to face ‘the inferno.’

You gave me no response to my suggestion for the use of mats that contain zeolites... What are you calling "non archival? Most fluted polypropylene would be perfectly adequate as a filler board even if it is not labeled as "archival grade."

Once again, I have no idea if Rising Museum contains zeolite, if Legion doesn’t incorporate zeolite into their boards, who does? Coroplast doesn’t export to Brazil, and as far as I know, there is only one company making this product here - Cartonale. The corrugated plastic they sell comes in a variety of colors as well as clear. I have been buying the clear, which could actually be the same as archival grade, but Cartonale has been rather reluctant in providing any info on this matter.

Re: Your test for the reactivation of acrylic medium with heat- I can assure you that I, Jim Miller and dozens of others have had excellent success with this process. Merely applying some to a piece of canvas and seeing if it will restick isn't a proper test.

O.K. - how did you and the others do this test? What materials and tools were used and under what conditions? I just want to duplicate exactly what you did to see why my tests did not yield the same results.

Same for trying to remove" foil from the adhesive. We are talking about the application of foil not the removal.

You had mentioned: “Acrylic medium can be reactivated with heat. If it dries, the use of a warm tacking iron will cause any foil to stick to it,” So I simply heated up the foil sufficiently and for enough time, and there was no sign of any softening or reactivation of the polymer beneath. If you want me to try this again by placing my tacking iron directly on top of dry medium, I will do that, but only as long as you guarantee me the polymer will not get adhered to my tacking iron.

Have you actually tried "leafing" the interior of a rabbet (as Baer suggested) using the acrylic medium?

No I haven’t, have no idea where one would find ‘leafing’ in Brazil nor what it would be called. If anyone knows I would appreciate it.

I really think it is your technique of application that is causing you so much trouble.

Have no idea what you are actually referring to, I haven’t had any troubles, all I have done so far is exchange ideas to see if they are going to work before I try them. I have never lined any of my frames with foil, although I did apply foil with polymer to a throw away piece of moulding for the test. Do you remember me revealing that aluminum foil in Brazil is very very thin and likely to rip?

You should be applying the foil as one would do to "leaf" a frame - in small, overlapping sheets. Allow the pieces to overhang the top and lip of your frame and trim only after the medium has thoroughly dried.

If I’m forced to apply foil, I will certainly try this procedure even though it sounds a little risky to cut around the lip without leaving any tiny little shiny spots from the aluminum or even accidently cutting into the lip...thanks for the information, it is a good one. Needless to say Rob, the amount of time this would take, particularly when I’m trying to prepare 60-70 frames for several exhibitions, and the fact these frames are either 30” x 40” or 40” x 50”, simply would be too time consuming. Hope this clues you better of the task at hand.

Again - what is your time worth? Couldn't you be making one more print, creating one more painting or doing something revenue producing with your time that would more than offset the cost of a roll of Lineco tape that does what it is supposed to do?

ABSOLUTELY - but you are missing the gist of my problem. Not only is there just one company selling the Lineco tape, but they only sell the small roll and they rarely have it in stock. I was forced to order two large rolls from B&H in NYC. If these rolls were to ship directly from B&H, Brazilian customs would definitely open the box since it was shipped by a company. Once they open the box and see duplicate copies of the same item, they will consider it as illegal imported supplies, which they normally confiscate or penalize you with astronomical duties. To play it a little safer, I asked B&H to ship the tapes to my sister in Florida, who then has to remove those tapes from the box, place them inside zip-lock bags and send them out in an old ragged box. Regardless of this diversion, if customs decides to open the box I run the same exact risk. It has already been 5 weeks since the box left Florida and no idea where it is.

Really appreciate your time Rob.
 
That is correct. The product labeled only as varnish is denser & less "porous" if you will.

You are also correct Terry, Liquitex does sell four individual water-based varnishes - Gloss, High Gloss, Matte and Satin. Unfortunately, Liquitex advertises their Soluvar Resin Varnishes as the only ones being non-porous. I would think that two coats of Gloss Medium & Varnish, may provide the same protection as one coat of Gloss Varnish, but most likely it would still be porous.

I know I've seen my acrylics stick to plenty of things, each other included. I think it's pressure over a long period that is a big factor.

I agree again with the latter portion. But this “sticking” you are mentioning is not the same as adhesion. Are you referring to an acrylic painting sticking to another acrylic painting? Even if this happened to you, I’m sure when they were separated nothing was peeled off.

But why care if the glass sticks to the rabbet? Is that what that's about?

It has never been a concern of mine, this warning came from Rob.

Posts are too long. Yes, I just skim them.

Sorry about the length Terry. It just becomes real difficult when some folks respond as if one had just started taking acrylic painting classes at the YMCA. In order to shift such skewed perspective, I have no choice but to defend a rather successful career. Not knocking you at all for not having the time to read my posts, but the other part of the problem is that folks don’t read previous responses, forcing people to re-explain certain things to clarify the new issues they are bringing to the table.

If that's really a worry you could just seal the side wall, the glass will seal the front.

I had originally queried Lineco on just taping the sides, but the gentleman responding said: “You have to tape the lip as well.” He also said any little rip on the foil must be mended. So now you have me wondering, can I really get away with just taping the sides and possibly an small piece at the corners covering the lip? The moulding I use has a deep rabbet, so I have to overlap the tape in order to cover the entire rabbet and lip. I do realize Lineco sells a much wider tape, but that one is not sold here.

I think tape is the best bet but you said you can or can't get it?

YOU SEE - you are asking me to repeat myself. I just posted an interesting explanation on this matter to Rob, just need to look at the last paragraph.

Thanks so much Terry!
 
Hi Rick -
Honestly, I don't get the point of this whole discussion. Lineco frame sealing tape does a great job at this specific task. Although it does cost money, it is very economical when purchased in the large roll, which lasts a long time.

Rather than repeating myself, please read the post to Rob above (last paragraph).

Furthermore, the cost of labor and time to brush on anything to the rabbet would probably far exceed the tape cost.

Quite possibly for framers painting the rabbet and lip would indeed be more difficult, but for an artist, applying the polymer is very easy and fast. Besides Rick, I do have sufficient Liquitex mediums and varnishes to last me 26 years. But again, all this is a mute point, you guys convinced me a long time ago not to use polymer medium. I haven’t again mentioned anything about using it.

If you are concerned about fitting points punching holes in your sealing tape, you could simply use the tape to seal the glass-mats-art-backings package, and then use your point driver to secure this whole package into the frame. The tape would still be doing its job, but would not have to be punctured. Yes, I realize the adhesive would be facing inward, but it would not be touching the art- plus I believe it is a stable acrylic adhesive anyway.

Feasible idea, but remember Rick, I’m in humid Brazil, I would think the mat and mounting boards need ‘free’ room to contract and expand, particularly 100% cotton rag. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

This should protect your art well, at least until the radiation wafts over here from Japan. Then all bets are off.

Hey, my home and studio are in an ocean side farm in the middle of nowhere. If you hear anything about the winds taking this stuff south, please sent me an urgent email so I could coat myself with polymer medium. Be that as it may, if it sounds real real bad, I promise to use Lineco tape instead...but what do I do about my hairy arms?

Thanks for all!
 
Hi Again Jim:

This is a general reply to all the comments made on your last posting. It is obvious my stated points and philosophies are not being understood or deciphered correctly. There is very little I could add to make my writings any clearer, and conversely, your answers tend to hurdle over the core of my arguments, almost as if I had never mentioned them. The lighting scenario being problematic with glazing was explained to comprise both the working environment as well as areas where the work will be showcased, but somehow you make it sound as if I only mentioned my studio. The same thing with your previous responses about your ardent insistence that all paintings should be glazed even when the physical aspects of the work makes it impossible and even if the artistic intention is totally nullified.

There is no doubt our differences regarding this and other art related matters will never march on the same path to congruence. Regardless of our differences, I do respect any future hints you may have to make me a better framer.

My best.
 
ABSOLUTELY - but you are missing the gist of my problem. Not only is there just one company selling the Lineco tape, but they only sell the small roll and they rarely have it in stock.


Is it possible to get this company to special order you a case or two or three of the large rolls of tape? They apparently are able to bring things into the country legally.
 
Again, you should be able to find marine varnishes and/or polyurethane varnishes in Brazil that would be better than acrylic for sealing a rabbet, at a lower cost than artist's materials. Soluvar would not be my first choice for sealing wood. It's removable, which is not a primary concern, and way too specialized for the application.

Sealing the interior surfaces of the frame, you don't care if the varnish yellows. Your primary concerns would be expansion and contraction of the wood causing cracking (which would lead to the use of a marine varnish) and porousness (which would lead to a urethane). Additionally you want something that dries hard, tack being very undesirable in this application.

Nothing is going to outgas from a wood varnish that will harm an Ultrachrome print, after the varnish has cured.

This seems like a simple solution, rather than fighting with supply problems or less reliable and more expensive acrylic medium.
 
Hi Again Rob - by total coincidence my wife suggested "why don't you use that stuff they put on our roof?" She was referring to a product called Plastifoil, which apparently is available in the USA, but the websites here claim the product made for Brazil is made stronger to combat our peculiar climatic conditions. This could be B.S., but now that I have a sample of that product in from of me, it looks ideal. In case you have no idea about Plastifoil, it comes in rolls and is used as a shield between ceramic roof tiles and the interior, so water doesn't penetrate and to keep interiors much cooler. It is made of aluminum foil on both front and back with a rather thin layer of polyethylene in between. It is approximately 0.125 mm thick, and it looks real tough. Could this thing work? If you or any member knows, please let me know ASAP! Thanks.
 
Very interesting and informative thread. Thanks for posing the question, Gil, because I think it opened up some good discussion. I also appreciate that you handled some of the discussion that bordered on sarcasm well and were persistent in your points yet continued to be open to suggestions.

I have an artist client I work with who paints in oil on linen canvas yet backs the substrate with a wood panel braced by strainers. The canvas is stretched with the wood panel on top of the strainer. He prefers the firm surface this arrangement provides. I advised him that he needed a barrier to seal the wood panel preventing any migration of lignins or other chemicals from the wood panel to the canvas and he now uses Kilz paint for that barrier.

I think reason dictates that there are many degrees of preservation framing and it is also an evolving science. As others have said here the proven and accepted method of sealing would be to use a metallic or glass barrier, but practicality may dictate that Kilz could provide an acceptable degree of preservation for your purposes. Do you have it available in your country?
 
Nonetheless, when framers begin to lecture a season painter about the ins and outs of acrylic painting products, or how artists should be displaying their work without taking into consideration the legitimate intentions of those artists, it becomes awfully difficult to keep quiet.

When artists begin to lecture seasoned framers about the ins and outs of framing products, or how framers should be framing work without taking into consideration the legitimate concerns of preserving the work of the artist, it becomes awfully difficult to keep quiet.

Gil, please, you have been given some excellent and reasoned advice by some of the best minds in framing, people who are among the most well-respected educators in the industry and who have been trusted with the preservation of some of the world's most vaulable artwork.

It's obvious that you are going to do whatever you want regardless of the advice given. And that's fine, but please don't post walls of text lecturing them and telling them they are wrong.
 
Again, you should be able to find marine varnishes and/or polyurethane varnishes in Brazil that would be better than acrylic for sealing a rabbet, at a lower cost than artist's materials. Soluvar would not be my first choice for sealing wood. It's removable, which is not a primary concern, and way too specialized for the application.

Sealing the interior surfaces of the frame, you don't care if the varnish yellows. Your primary concerns would be expansion and contraction of the wood causing cracking (which would lead to the use of a marine varnish) and porousness (which would lead to a urethane). Additionally you want something that dries hard, tack being very undesirable in this application.

Nothing is going to outgas from a wood varnish that will harm an Ultrachrome print, after the varnish has cured.

This seems like a simple solution, rather than fighting with supply problems or less reliable and more expensive acrylic medium.


Much obliged for your suggestions, only wish I knew your name to do a proper salutation. Never knew neither of these products were acceptable to this forum, as I have been told time and time again only metal and glass are acceptable barriers. Which one of the two would be closer to conservation standards? Do me a favor when you get the opportunity. Could you peruse the question I just posted above and give me your feedback. Thanks again.
 
Gil, thank you for posing this topic here. I, my self, have questioned the use of different methods of sealing a frame and this discussion has helped me understand the use of each.

If you want to try the marine varnish, try McCloskey® Man O'War® Spar Marine Varnish or
Valspar varnish. McCloskey is made by Valspar. According to Valspar's web page, their products are available in Brazil.

I also want to congratulate you on your works of art. They are truly amazing! I hope one day to be honored to see them in person!

Best wishes
 
Much obliged for your suggestions, only wish I knew your name to do a proper salutation. Never knew neither of these products were acceptable to this forum, as I have been told time and time again only metal and glass are acceptable barriers. Which one of the two would be closer to conservation standards? Do me a favor when you get the opportunity. Could you peruse the question I just posted above and give me your feedback. Thanks again.

My name is Travis, and it's a pleasure to meet you.

As to how acceptable they are, I've made more trade-offs than I can count. Perfect conservation standards would involve sealing the rabbet with metal-lined tape, sure. Smuggling that in to Brazil makes the solution less attractive.

So on the continuum from 'best' to 'better' to 'awful', if I can't do best for aesthetic or practical reasons, I move on to better. If the presentation of the work demands awful, that's what gets used. I have used quite a lot of varnish in finish carpentry, and have a couple boatbuilder friends who use marine varnishes, and am very comfortable with their properties because of that. They seal wood well :)

Unfortunately, I haven't encountered the Plastifoil you're referring to. It kind of sounds like the space blankets they'd give us for wilderness survival. If it was thick enough it might serve, but if I was personally using something like that I'd want to know what all the materials involved were and assess the risk from there :)
 
Gil, please, you have been given some excellent and reasoned advice by some of the best minds in framing, people who are among the most well-respected educators in the industry and who have been trusted with the preservation of some of the world's most vaulable artwork.

It's obvious that you are going to do whatever you want regardless of the advice given. And that's fine, but please don't post walls of text lecturing them and telling them they are wrong.

FramerDave:

Either you are not taking the time to read those "walls of text" appropriately, or, you are adhering to the inadvisable belief that a well known framer should know better about art than a well known artist. I haven't presented any arguments or objections when good advise on framing or conservation has been given since you guys are the experts. Nonetheless FramerDave, it is a bit derogatory telling a professional artist, who has had a very lengthy eminent career, how an acrylic paintings should be done to better please the framing world. Even when I have disagreed with members, I have done it respectfully, since my aim is not to "lecture" to them, but rather, to intellectually exchange ideas. If my diplomatic explanations have offended you or anyone else, my sincere apologies, even though I stand firmly by my stated convictions on the subject. It is nothing more than a different opinion FramerDave, after all, people having expertise in other fields do have the right to present them in this forum - don't they?
 
Very interesting and informative thread. Thanks for posing the question, Gil, because I think it opened up some good discussion. I also appreciate that you handled some of the discussion that bordered on sarcasm well and were persistent in your points yet continued to be open to suggestions.

I have an artist client I work with who paints in oil on linen canvas yet backs the substrate with a wood panel braced by strainers. The canvas is stretched with the wood panel on top of the strainer. He prefers the firm surface this arrangement provides. I advised him that he needed a barrier to seal the wood panel preventing any migration of lignins or other chemicals from the wood panel to the canvas and he now uses Kilz paint for that barrier.

I think reason dictates that there are many degrees of preservation framing and it is also an evolving science. As others have said here the proven and accepted method of sealing would be to use a metallic or glass barrier, but practicality may dictate that Kilz could provide an acceptable degree of preservation for your purposes. Do you have it available in your country?

Hi Dave - Thank you for your comments, they are sincerely appreciated especially receiving it after the post from 'FrameDave' which left me totally perplexed with his apparent anger. Terry had also learn through Liquitex that Kilz is what that company recommends for sealing frames. Have no idea if this product is found in Brazil but I will investigate. In the meantime, if anyone else has ever used this product as a barrier, please let me know what you think.

Much appreciated.
 
Back
Top