In lieu of glare-free glass, does anyone reguarly display their work in frames sans glass?
thanx,
Joe
In lieu of glare-free glass, does anyone reguarly display their work in frames sans glass?
thanx,
Joe
I do. I hate glass. The only time I have used glazing is for some prints I hung at work, because I didn't want the cleaning staff to use Windex on the bare prints.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
In the balance of long term protection from the elements, unencumbered viewing etc. glass is still the best compromise. In general, the real problem is where a framed print is hung and how it is lit rather than the use of glass. Most people pay scant attention to the environment and then blame the use of glass for problems in viewing the print.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Well, I'm a "push the button" kind of printer, which colors my perception a bit. The prints I hang in my own home do not use glazing anymore. I'm about to start experimenting with no mats either - just printing on a piece of paper the size of the frame, but with the image somewhat smaller.
I'm about to send a couple of matted and framed images to my sister, and shipping without glazing is nice, as well. And if they fall off the wall, no broken glass! If the prints ever suffer in some way, I can just print more. But by the time that happens she might be looking for something new anyway!
If I ever sold any images I might have other concerns, but that is not a problem at this point!
Sure, the "mistakes" (mostly mounting or finishing) – in my garage.
But seriously, I have tried glare resistant acrylic glazing, the glass variety being beyond my means and otherwise undesirable. It merely dulls the clarity of the underlying print. That probably isn't much of a problem for machine made images .
I am surprised that anyone uses plain glass anymore. It is very heavy and a problem waiting to happen. But I always use acrylic. It does add glare but protects the prints from dust, fingerprints, and general mischief. The acrylic I get from Frame Destinations is my favorite because the adhesive paper comes off easily in one simple tug.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
If it weren't so expensive, I'd use Museum Glass or one of the equivalents. Really amazing stuff. Over the last few years I've settled on plexi. The weight and durability and clarity offset the scratchability and dust magnet qualities. But I don't like the wavy look it gives to glare and reflections.
The project I'm doing now will probably be glassless.
I have only used standard acrylic for framing and displaying b&w prints since the 1970's. I feel the green tint of glass ruins a b&w print.
I use standard glass for small and medium prints, and acrylic for very large prints or ones that will be shipped for exhibition. Acrylic is expensive and scratches easily, but for very large prints it can actually be a safety issue.
I've seen a few unglazed prints (in traditional frames) in shows lately. They look somewhat strange when presented next to prints with glass. Of course if it's a solo show or prints for your home, then go crazy and do what you want, it doesn't have to fit in with any other work.
In my opinion if you use a traditional frame and no glass, it looks sort of odd. If you do something completely different, say, a print mounted on gatorboard or dibond with no frame, that can be a simple and nice presentation.
Kirk's right, if the light is right, the glass disappears for the most part.
Bookmarks