Guild Guild Framers Committee reply to points raised on TFF

[Graysalchemy]

It's off on a tangent again, this isn't about the performance of GCFs after they have passed the test, that's been done - why not just bump the last thread discussing this (which I think you'll find was also a thread that went to it off topic)

I don't think it was off tangent.

There are a couple of points which have recently been raised on TFF which were discussed at the Framers Committee meeting this week.

All I was pointing out was that the framers committee didn't appear to want to discuss all the points that they have been made. Obviously the Guild and GCF's are not prepared to have skill and knowledge measured in order to maintain standards when there is a clear need to stamp out rouge elements which are not befitting of the GCF.

How many GCF's support the guild with a subscription? Not many I would imagine, so surely making membership of the guild compulsory to maintain the GCF qualification, thus using some of that money to promote the GCF and maintaining standards would be beneficial to the GCF's. I can understand why GCF's wouldn't want to change the current arrangement, but how many professional bodies allow you to trade on your qualification without being a member and supporting that body? I would say the Guild is quite unique in that respect.

So the Framers Committee, please don't be selective in what you want to hear and comment on we are your audience and potential members so do please listen. I am not the only one who hold these thoughts and reservations about the GCF

[Trinity]

I agree with Grays last post - the thought that you can use the accreditation letters but not pay a membership fee of whatever size to the accrediting body is just nuts.

[Graysalchemy]

At Last someone who sees sense, pity the guild doesn't.

[Framer Dave]

No, the ability to hold accreditation without being a member of the governing body is not unique to the FATG. One can attain and keep CPF and MCPF status without being a member of the PPFA. Keep in mind that a CPF, GCF or MCPF are often employees, not owners of a store, and yearly membership dues may be a burden.

I'm sure the PPFA or FATG could make membership a requirement, but I have a feeling that then there would be an outcry and accusations of certification being nothing but a money grab.

[Graysalchemy]

Keep in mind that a CPF, GCF or MCPF are often employees, not owners of a store, and yearly membership dues may be a burden.

And so are many chartered engineers, surveyors, accountants etc etc and they all have to be a members of their trade body. My wife works for a professional body and those who want to use their accreditation obviously have to be a member, regardless of if they are an employee or not. But I suppose if the PPFA doesn't require membership then their is no way the guild could, the precedent has been set

I agree there would be outcry but it does appear that the guild is not being supported by those of us that the guild is meant to represent and benefit. Now that could be because we are all tight wads or that people don't feel that there isn't any benefit to them. If you have a GCF you must be benefiting and should support the guild, after all you are trading on their name or in the case of an employee perhaps gained your employment or secured a pay rise because of your GCF.

[Mary Evans]

Nigel Nobody asked the difference between Guild Museum and Conservation Level framing. There are two main differences for art on paper: the quality of mountboards, and quality of tapes used for hinging the artwork.
Museum Level: Cotton Museum mountboards
Hinging tapes made from naturally lignin-free, pH neutral paper and starch paste, MC (methyl cellulose) or SCMC (sodium carboxyl methyl cellulose) adhesvive
Conservation Level: Conservation mountboards
Hinging tapes made from conservation or museum quality tape and water-soluble adhesive
There is no specification for UV filter glass because there are occasions when even these levels of framing do not require it, for example in museums where there are often no outside windows and the lighting is controlled to minimize UV.

The Levels are intended as guidance to help framers understand materials and techniques, both those which are suitable for very valuable artwork as well as those acceptable on less valuable items.
Prospero said: Point 1: Surely a great part of the framers skill is to have the ability to decide just what is required for a particular piece in order the preserve it. You can't apply blanket 'rules' that apply to everything.
I totally agree with this statement. A huge variety of work comes into most bespoke framing workshops and it can’t all be “pigeon-holed” into a Guild Framing Level. But I hope the Levels are an educational tool to help framers make their own intelligent decisions as to what is right for any particular item. The members of the Framers Committee are totally normal working framers – all we are trying to do is to set a framework and qualifications to help and encourage framers (particularly the less experienced) to understand good framing practice.

On the subject of GCF, the Guild would love to have every GCF as a member (of course!) but we just can’t do that; it isn’t legal. The GCF is an exam, just like a GCSE or “A” level exam – once you have passed it, you have that qualification and no one can force you to do a refresher course or to belong to the Guild. That’s the way it was set up in 1994. Perhaps we could change it for future GCF candidates (though how many people would that put off taking it?) but there is nothing we can do about those who already hold the qualification.

Someone suggested that we were not prepared to discuss ALL the points raised on TFF. Sorry if I missed some – please remind me. I have purposely missed out ones I think have been answered in recent posts. We will listen to and consider any points raised but we probably have to accept that we will never be able to please everyone.

Mary Evans

[Nigel Nobody]

Thanks for the explanation, Mary!
There are some areas where more qualified people than me, disagree with some of the differences between the two levels. For instance, some alpha cellulose mats (Alphamat) are a higher quality conservation product than most cotton rag mats.
Japanese paper/starch paste is conservation quality. "Tapes" are not, because despite what the manufacturer says on the package, they are not necessarily completely reversible.

There is no specification for UV filter glass because there are occasions when even these levels of framing do not require it, for example in museums where there are often no outside windows and the lighting is controlled to minimize UV.

The majority of art is not hung in those circumstances, so I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement. It's a bit like saying that it's rare for anyone to be killed during bank robberies, so let's not bother to have a law against bank robberies.

Having no UV glazing specifications, but having specifications for the two lower levels of framing contains no logic, in my opinion.

I think it's great that you are prepared to come here and explain things.

[Mary Evans]

Thanks Nigel/Ormond

This is a personal reply, not on behalf of the Framers Committee.

I accept that Alphamat Artcare boards may be a better product than other boards but not everyone will agree with that. What (I hope!) is certain is that all conservation moountboards come up to a minimum level agreed for conservation work by a group including the major mountboard manufacturers serving the UK at the time, some paper conservators (including representation from the Institute of Paper Conservation), and at least one conservator from a top London museum. That is from memory, but I could check the full list if you like. The symposium was set up by Nielsen (to their huge credit in my opinion) and they too agreed to these standards for Museum, Conservation and Standard mountboard. If my memory is correct they didn’t dissociate themselves from the Mountboard Standards until some time later.

To me, it doesn’t seem reasonable to say the Levels don’t stand up because one brand is better than the others when they all meet the agreed standard. Two other points on this subject:
1. There will never be agreement on whether the Microchamber technology (used in Nielsen Bainbridge Artcare mountboards) is superior until they remove the monopoly and share the technology – certainly the other mountboard manufacturers are unlikely to agree.
2. One of my paper conservators raised the question of “what happens when all the pockets that collect the harmful substances become full?” She is not particularly keen to use these boards because the future is uncertain, whereas Cotton Museum boards have been around for a long time and their longevity is understood.

Right, I know I’ll be criticised now for changing the subject and probably really putting the cat among the pigeons! Again, I stress, this is a personal post.

Also I quite agree with you that manufactured tapes are not always reversible despite being labelled “conservation”, though one English company did ask for Framers Committee guidance and relabelled, which was greatly appreciated.

Mary

P.S. If you ask for a reply I’m sorry I’m away for the next couple of days and may not be able to pick up internet connection.

[Roboframer]

One of my paper conservators raised the question of “what happens when all the pockets that collect the harmful substances become full?”

They have the ability (I read somewhere, a long time ago) that they have the ability to empty themselves and can continue to do so for something stupid like 400 years!

But, whatever, they are still doing something that boards without them can't - they have the buffers that other boards have, they have EVERYTHING the best boards have, they look as good (in fact they have a far better selection of colours, oversized boards, cotton and solid core boards, coloured core boards, extra thick boards, textures and finishes than many others without the technology) they cut as good or better, but then they have that extra something which is active, regardless of how long for.

Well dodgy for washlines though!

[stcstc]

how do we know this technology works. there are lots of things shouted about in the inkjet printing market, long light fastness results etc

are the figures quoted, from the manufacturer, are they from and idependent test lab, or are they from a test lab commissioned by the manufactuer.

the reason i ask is the same logic ormond used earlier in this thread about conservation tapes, just because the manufacturer says so, doesnt make it so

I know when i am working with prints, i always say to clients the lightfastness figures come from reasearch, but no one really actually knows as the technology hasnt been around that long

I also think the reason for confusion with the standards, the more i read, is a missing word.

it needs to always say X or above, that way both the cotton rag and the nielson boards fit the bill.

where are these products used, are they common practice in museums for expensive artwork, if they are so good?

[Roboframer]

We have to take in the manufacturer's claims, bearing in mind that they need to be careful what they put in B&W, and then look further for more impartial advice and opinion.

I've done that over a long peroid of time and am happy that these boards offer the highest protection possible. A 'normal' conservation quality board cannot protect artwork from itself (newsprint for example); artcare can.

where are these products used, are they common practice in museums for expensive artwork, if they are so good?

Some museums and records offices use the boards to line archival storage boxes .... apparently. I did post an impartial link for you previously and could find more if you can't yourself, but anyway, why not just forget the zeolite/microchamber bit and then compare prices for an equivalent board? It's actually hard to FIND an equivalent board in so many colours, sizes, thicknesses, textures and finishes. Go for that and think of the added protection as a bonus.

[countrystudio]

Being new to framing I am probably going to put both feet in my mouth at the same time.
I too, do not understand the necessity for standard and budget framing levels. Cheep is cheep at the end of the day.

In the short time I have been framing I have been given questionable work to re-do - this work having been done by someone who (the customer says) has a FATG sticker on their door.

Surely a lot of the hoo haa would be resolved if FULL membership to the guild could only be attained when we can prove that we can frame to at least a commended level. Then I believe that the geneal public could indeed expect a higher standard of work from someone with the magic sticker on their door.

At the moment it seems to me that anyone with a saw and pot of paint can pay their membership money, get a FATG membership sticker and 'piggy back' off of the public perception that if you are a member of the guild, then surely you must be a good framer.

I think that this public perception of FATG Membership=quality genuinely devalues the honourable aims and objectives of the guild to train, teach and establish best practice. If we had to prove our quality of work before being allowed to advertise ourselves as guild qualified framers then this public perception would be justified.

Membership should be open to new framers but I don't think we should be allowed to use the FATG logo at all until we have had our work confirmed as suitable to commended level.

Finances - Surely if everyone paid a reasonable annual membership fee (even if it is somewhat reduced for commended framers or higher) then there would be sufficient funds for the guild to operate effectively and engage in marketing activities, training courses and assessments.

[stcstc]

i started reading those links robo. it is very interesting technology.

what i was trying to do was show we need to be careful with protected technology. Like ormond said some tapes are not conservation because they are not fully reversible

so using the 400 year quote is not a provable figure and could be misleading

I recently was involved with a project involving lots of fosils. the way they were stored and displayed used to be setting them in plaster, but now its not common practice as people realised it wasnt best practice.

But your right they sound like very good board and as good as cotton ones, and maybe over time the figures of the protected technology maybe proven

[Nigel Nobody]

I think it is important that that there is independent verification of the claims of a matboard company. The fact that FATG was guided to some extent by matboard manufacturers in the construction of their two top levels worries me quite a bit.

IMO the fact that one conservator has a prejudice against microchamber technology does not outweigh the evidence and opinions of many independent organisations and conservators. If Alphamat preserves the colour in an image and reduces the affects of lignin and other potentially harmful gases in the art medium for a long and undetermined period of time, that has to be an advantage over any cotton rag matboard that does not do the same!


A couple of independent sites that show some pretty convincing evidence of the benefits of micro chamber technology:
http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn ... 8-106.html

http://www.conservationresources.com/Ma ... hamber.htm


Some info on the Nielsen site that explains the technology in plain terms.
http://www.nielsenbainbridge.com/eng/pr ... otect.html

[Graysalchemy]

Surely a lot of the hoo haa would be resolved if FULL membership to the guild could only be attained when we can prove that we can frame to at least a commended level. Then I believe that the geneal public could indeed expect a higher standard of work from someone with the magic sticker on their door.

At the moment it seems to me that anyone with a saw and pot of paint can pay their membership money, get a FATG membership sticker and 'piggy back' off of the public perception that if you are a member of the guild, then surely you must be a good framer.

Well said this has been my point exactly for the past few months. The same could also be said for the GCF. I have come across many a bespoke framer with a GCF who are filled with all the carp and seem to think they know it all and perhaps know more than me. I have 15 yrs experience in this industry both bespoke high street and commercial framing.

The GCF is divisive and in my opinions is causing the rifts which Max Roberts Master of the Guild has said in other posts he wants to avoid. As we all operate in a commercial environment in competion with one another to a greater or lesser degree, an exam or membership which gives a perceived commercial advantage, which is open to abuse, is divisive.

If the guild wants to be a proper professional body then it needs a structure of membership and examination which befits those aims and aspirations.

On the subject of GCF, the Guild would love to have every GCF as a member (of course!) but we just can’t do that; it isn’t legal. The GCF is an exam, just like a GCSE or “A” level exam – once you have passed it, you have that qualification and no one can force you to do a refresher course or to belong to the Guild. That’s the way it was set up in 1994.

This was perhaps a short sighted decision back in 1994 surely someone should have seen that it potentially be abused (as it has) or not tested as thoroughly as it should be. I am sure that 99% of GCF's do a perfectly good job probably like the 99% of non GCF's but it is that small number of GCF which are not doing a proper job which is being brought to the attention of framers on the forum. Yes we have all seen shoddy work by framers but we shouldn't be seeing shoddy work from framers who have the full support of the guild. Surely the GCF was set up to educate framers and reward those who were dedicated to improving standards, not give some framer a fraudulent commercial advantage.


Since no one from the guild will actually confront this question apart from telling me that it is high on the guilds agenda (awaiting yet another committee), then perhaps I will re word the question which requires only a one word answer:-

Does the guild have anyway of removing someones GCF if it is proved that they are not framing to a standard befitting a GCF?

I am sure this question will not be answered, and I am also sure that the answer would be NO.

If we had not seen shoddy work from GCF's then we would not complain about the GCF and perhaps a few of us might in fact wish to take the exam.

Off to do what all of us should be doing FRAMING

[Nigel Nobody]

AG,
No they don't have a way of removing someones qualifications! No one does and probably never will have! Even if they wanted to, the cost of employing people to inspect all GCF's work randomly would be outrageous and with so many framers refusing to join the organization for their own personal reasons, how the heck would they get that money?

You seen to have hold of this one single gripe, with the teeth of a bulldog, as if it is the one and only topic in the universe and as if there are uncountable people committing this heinous crime!

Yes it is bad if some GCF framers do shoddy work, but it would be a minority!

[Graysalchemy]

I have never suggested random inspection of GCF work. I was hoping for something more on the lines of your CPF or MCPF were their is continual professional development and examination combined with professional certification linked to membership like other professional bodies.

The GCF in my opinion is quite a straight forward looking exam using common sense and basic principles of framing. It isn't a PhD in picture framing and quite frankly the majority of framers frame within the guidelines of the GCF anyway, it is quite basic stuff. My point being because you have a qualification in a level of knowledge how does it make you better than someone who already has that knowledge but doesn't see the need to be tested?

The guild clearly states on their website that you can distinguish yourself from others by having this qualification? If the exam was more taxing and gave you a greater depth of knowledge of framing then i would be happy with that, but it doesn't, all it does is examines quite a basic level of competence and the five levels of framing.

Add to this the fact some people are trading on this and providing a sub standard level of service then bingo you can see why it is a touchy subject with me.

[Vix]

I have to say I actually agree with much of what AG is saying, especially regarding the GCF. The policing of standards by the Guild though would be too difficult to implement which is why they could never take away the qualification off any framer who flouts the rules. However surely if the general public were as 'informed' as to the what the FATG's role is actually about and the standards that should be adhered to by GCF qualified framers, then surely that would be an issue for trading standards, as they are not producing what they say they are. From my own research when i've asked customers if they've ever heard of the FATG, 99% haven't got a clue who or what they represent, which just goes to show that perhaps the Guild is still living in it's own little bubble of self promotion.

I'm not saying this as a newbie to the industry as I too have been framing for 20+ years and if I felt that the exam and joining of the Guild would have benefitted my business in any way I would have joined by now.

However, I'm also not saying that the Guild is all bad. It does try to do what they perceive to be the best for the industry but in a lot of ways in my opinion it remains a bit of a dinosaur stuck in it's ways. I'm sure Maxwell will do a very good job of trying to update things from within as I know how passionate he is about the industry. I seriously doubt that the arguments between the Guild and non Guild members will ever find common ground though due to the fact that neither side will ever compromise their beliefs. Should that day ever happen though, then maybe, just maybe I may re-think my position on joining the Guild and taking the GCF - but quite frankly if my work hadn't have been up to scratch I think i'd have been out of business a long time ago!

[Framerpicture]

From my own research when i've asked customers if they've ever heard of the FATG, 99% haven't got a clue who or what they represent, which just goes to show that perhaps the Guild is still living in it's own little bubble of self promtion

Well said!
Before I decided to leave the Guild I did similair research and got the same result!

[Graysalchemy]

I am glad it is not just me who thinks like this I thought I was in a minority of one.