photo presentation
Art Reitsch
it onto matt board, then lay an overmatt on top that doesn't touch the
edges of the photo, then frame. A guy at my local frame shop says no
piece of art work should be permanently attached to anything like matt
board. What is the accepted way to present b/w prints, as in an art
show or gallery?
Thanks.
Art
Sherman
news:3F6465F2...@olympus.net...
Art,
I think there are as many answers to this as there are methods of displaying
prints. It does seem to be the fashion currently for galleries and museums
to prefer work that is not permanently mounted to the backing board. I
suspect some of this predjudice is caused by some truly poor mounting jobs
ruining prints. If they aren't mounted then the gallery or museum is
assured there is no hidden problem.
For what it is worth, when I went to the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibit
virtually all of his prints were mounted as you described. They were dry
mounted to a backing board and the overmat was cut larger than the entire
print leaving the white margin visible all the way around. AA then signed
the print on the margin of the print itself.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
J Stafford
<ar7...@olympus.net> wrote:
IMHO, your frame guy is right. Attaching art work to board (or anything)
only adds to the possiblility of contamination and makes removal of the
board at a later date more problematic. Place the work on the board and
put a matte or glass over it just securely enough to keep it in place and
let the client decide what to do with it later.
J Stafford
"Sherman" <shermanD...@dunnam.net> wrote:
> For what it is worth, when I went to the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibit
> virtually all of his prints were mounted as you described. They were dry
> mounted to a backing board and the overmat was cut larger than the entire
> print leaving the white margin visible all the way around. AA then signed
> the print on the margin of the print itself.
Could the print have been floated that way so the viewer could compare the
base white to the high zone of the print? It was his way, part of his
esthetic/technique.
Tom Thackrey
Never frame with glass touching the print. Over time you will find the print
mounted to the glass.
The dry-mount or not debate rages.
The problem with dry-mounting is that the mount board becomes part of the
art. Many old photographs are now attached to deteriorating mount boards.
It's nearly impossible to remove the photo from the mount. I've seen some 50
year old AA mounted prints where the mount stock is crumbling and yellow and
the print is fine, sad. OTH, I've seen some 80 year old EWs where the mount
and the print are perfect.
The problem with not dry-mounting is that you never get a really flat print.
Photo corners etc can't hold it flat. I saw a show recently where the prints
were fairly large (~30x30). Unless viewed at a 90 degree angle the uneven
print surface was very distracting.
My choice is to dry-mount (to archival mount stock of course) unless the
customer requests otherwise.
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
Jean-David Beyer
> For what it is worth, when I went to the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibit
> virtually all of his prints were mounted as you described. They were
> dry mounted to a backing board and the overmat was cut larger than
> the entire print leaving the white margin visible all the way around.
> AA then signed the print on the margin of the print itself.
>
The Ansel Adams print I have is dry-mounted to the mat. His signature,
however, is on the mount (not the mat) just under the lower right corner
of the print, not on the print itself. It is one of his (i.e., full
signature, not initials). I got it in 1974 when you could still afford
such things.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 1:40pm up 23 days, 23:06, 2 users, load average: 2.08, 2.14, 2.10
D Poinsett
I have heard the same thing that your frame guy reports but I have also been
asking around at high end photo galleries in the U.S. The owners say that
the mount is not that critical. High end galleries are selling primarily to
collectors so the worth of the print has as much (or more) to with those
things that make the print collectable: rarity, name recognition, and of
course aesthetics. A few places where I've asked include the Halsted Gallery
in Michigan, the Andrew Smith Gallery in Santa Fe, and the Joel Soroka
Gallery in Aspen. To be fair, a non-attached mount may be preferred but that
aspect of the work seems to be less important than I was starting to
believe.
For now, I continue to dry-mount my prints using archival materials and
methods. In a frame, I use the overmat as you describe.
If any of us reach a level where museums are interested in our work (other
than to simply add to the collection in the basement), I suspect that the
mounting method will not make or break the acquisition.
--
Dave Poinsett
(Remove DO-NOT-SPAM from email address for direct reply)
Sherman
news:john-14090...@ip-0-205.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
It is interesting to me that virtually all the prints signed with his full
name were mounted that way but the others which were only initialed were
about 50/50. I understand he signed his full name on prints he made
entirely himself and initialed those printed under his supervision by
assistants, but I could be wrong.
That would seem to indicate that Ansel thought that mounting and matting in
that way was important. And as I said, you could be right that he was
showing the quality of his printing by letting us see the base white. I
hadn't really heard that before.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Jon
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Reply-To: "Sherman" <shermanD...@dunnam.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:17:57 GMT
> Subject: Re: photo presentation
I just went to the Ansel Adams at 100 show yesterday at MOMA Queens. I was
surprised at how many of the prints had the white edge trimmed off, with his
signature on the mat below.
Jon
Robert Feinman
people think dry mounting improves print life.
Personally I use dry mount for both silver-based and ink jet prints.
--
Robert D Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com