Maybe one deciding factor for or against DM would be whether the print would spend most of its life in
a drawer or on a wall.
As for the signature, is there a particular reason why pencil is prefered (as opposed to
fine pigmented archival-grade ink) ?
This is an interesting thread. I was involved in this argument last year and when on a photography expedition to the Bay area, I stopped at the Carmel/Monterrey galleries and went to PhotoSF. I looked at the mounts and matting and came to the conclusion that galleries have both. Those prints that were hanging were normally, as far as I could tell, dry mounted. Those that were in portfolios were laying flat, unmounted, with slip paper between them. The color prints like glicee and ink jet were not dry mounted for obvious reasons. Color work on fiber paper were not mounted either because the paper lays fairly flat due to it's very makeup. Same with carbon, salt, cyanotype, van dyke, Pt/Pd, and most other alt process prints which are printed on very high quality papers anyway. The reason FB and RC prints get all wavey is that the emulsion has a different makeup than the paper with different expansion/contraction coefficients so depending on temps and humidity, they will get warped. And that is why most of the silver prints I saw under glass, and the photographers I've met (many of the current crop of contemporary photographers seen in most galleries here in the west) dry mount their prints that are going to galleries to hang. I've been to John Sexton's studio and seen dozens and dozens of prints all ready to go and all dry mounted. I've been to Ray McSaveney's place with dry mounted prints stacked up in every conceivable nook and crannie with dust all over them. I was once over to Morely Baer's house (prior to his passing) and he had his prints all dry mounted and matted. I'd love to see Kirt's studio someday and spend the day looking at his work no matter how it's presented. And as for how someone signs a print or matt, most were signed in some fashion on the front. None that I recall being signed on the print but on the matt. As for the archival isses of the matt vs the print, both are made of rag material and either is subject to damage. If someone has a valuable print, I doubt that you are going to allow anything to happen to it anyway. I once saw a gallery owner in 1000 Oaks here in California who had dozens of original Ansel Adams prints that he had just stacked in a drawer. I know that they were probably, from the vintage of the printing, work prints or those you could buy pre 70's but still, I'd have given my eye teeth for any one of them and treated it like gold. He was rich though. The reason a window matt is used on top of a print is to protect the prints surface from damage in the first place when they are laying flat in a drawer or a portfolio case even with slip paper between them. But then again this is the artists choice and seldom the curators. The conservator has little say in it anyway since they aren't the buyers usually. There is no convention per se that I have seen. But then again I haven't been back east or to Chicago. Maybe they do things differently. I just know I hate the way a print looks hanging when it isn't dry mounted and it's all wavey. It's difficult to see very well. And I've seen hanging prints under just about every lighting imaginable. Just mount it the way you want it, damn the torpedoesand full speed ahead. Go make images. Love to meet you someday Kirt. I've seen some of your images hanging. Santa Fe and I'll-be-quirky. I'd love to see you have a show here in San Diego like the Bellows Gallery or MoPA.
This is a bit off topic, but has anyone had issues with 100% rag museum board attracting little bugs? A long time ago I used nothing but rag board and started finding these little mites in my portfolio cases and drawers. they were usually dead by the time i found them, often squished between prints (nasty). This happened in Colorado and in Rhode Island.
I switched to an acid free, non-rag buffered board (light impressions exeter conservation board) and the bugs never reappeared. Aparently this board is archival as long as you're not using a process that's sensitive to the alkaline buffering agent (like dye transfer).
paulr
Yes, a friend had the bugs come out of the mats during a show. They showed up inside the frames. He had to remat the prints while the show was in progress.
As far as dry mounting, my experience is like yours. Conservators are very cautious folks and just don't understand the artist. I agree with Henry. They should make their own art and not impose upon others. I was taught to dry mount anything important and I like dry mounted silver and some inkjet. I don't dry mount the alt processes.
Wayne
I have always drymounted my prints, and signed the mat. The photograph conservator with whom I share a toothbrush rack prefers unmounted prints but says essentially "you're the artist; it's your decision; we just take care of the work". With her guidance I now use the 'archival' mount tissue that can be removed with heat. But recently I sold two prints where I trimmed the borders off the prints, dry-mounted them, signed on the mount board beneath the lower right corner, and cut a "float" mat to go over it. It looked good, the customer liked it, don't know if I'll continue it. One last point- the gallery in NY that has some of my prints has no problems with dry-mounting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks