I wonder why the need to change what is an expression of the work and materials used at the time. Does it e really need a pristine mat or is there value in the original presentation however it has altered by time. (not counting preservation issues)
A valid point. However, I do not believe that this is an expression of the work and materials used at the time. Rather, a representation of lacking proper care, resulting from being stored in an attic. Of course, it is not in my possession to enjoy; were it so, I would choose to emphasize the beauty of the print, not the unfortunate condition of the mat. As to value, perhaps you are correct.
Some quite valuable works of art have ended up being ruined due to either poor storage or just plain ignorance of proper framing technique until relatively recently. Some of these can be salvaged before it's too late. I'm not implying that's the case here; the problem as described seems minor. Nor am I implying that just because a print was made by a well-known photographer it's valuable. I can think of several much more famous individuals whose commercial portraiture has only marginal value compared to what they considered personal work of artistic value. I'm not in a position to decide in this case. But the fact that it's a signed hand-coated platinum print must have some significance. It matters little anyway; it's valuable to the poster himself, and he wants to do it justice. That's what matters.
I take the same care with even amateur antique photographs, by otherwise unknowns, that I find especially interesting.
Those are fine sentiments, Jim, but Laura Gilpin used a non-archival hand-cut vellum ‘mat’. Additionally her prints were not dry mounted and often have non flatted rippled edges. Many photographers of her generation used simple coloured paper (often with hand drawn pencil rectangles) as mats.
There may well be a conflict between what the photographer chose and what we think is worthy of her and what will best preserve the article.
I am reminded of Clarence White's prints held in Princeton, still in contact with their original wooden frames without mats or surface protection and valued for that more than modern matted examples.
Personally, I might just overmat with just enough cutback to see the signature, which would cover the rippling at the frame edge, but that might necessitate another frame, which if the frame is original,would be a pity to lose that. or just leave it and appreciate the honesty of it's flaws as seen by modern eyes.
Yes, you're right. Thank you.
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com
Bookmarks