Framing without glass- gallery possibly refusing to hang?

[gchappel]

I do not like glass over my images.  I don't like the reflections.  If I go to non glare glass, I lose some of the fine detail.  It seems to put a barrier between me and seeing the work.  I print on an ipf8400 using oem inks.  Papers are luster to matt, epson and ilford.   The gallery talks about- "Hanging without glass exposes it to heat, moisture, and pollutants which can cause destructive physical and chemical reactions."  Not sure how to respond.  I think if I were hanging this in a childs waiting area or carwash I could put glass over it, but in a gallery?  I have dozens and dozens of images that are 5yrs old, they all look fine.  I have only owned the ipf8400 for 5 years.  Older images printed on HP also look fine.  I do not expect my art to last 200 years, not that important.   By the way, glass is not listed in the requirements anywhere.   Does everyone else put glass over their images?  Again, I just do not like the look.   I guess if anyone actually buys one, they can put glass over it if they choose?
By the way, I donated these to a fund raiser.  6prints 24x36".  My framer charges roughly $100/piece for museum glass this size so that was another issue. 
Gary

[Peter McLennan]

I'm with you, Gary.  Glass is heavy, fragile and distracting.  I have a glassless, light-toned monochrome print in my kitchen (imagine the vapours it's exposed to) and it shows zero signs of damage after more than a year.  Luster media, pigment inks.  HP Z3200.

[rdonson]

It seems silly to me too.  Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting.  Someday the art community will wake up.  I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings.  For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily. 

[mearussi]

I do not like glass over my images.  I don't like the reflections.  If I go to non glare glass, I lose some of the fine detail.  It seems to put a barrier between me and seeing the work.  I print on an ipf8400 using oem inks.  Papers are luster to matt, epson and ilford.   The gallery talks about- "Hanging without glass exposes it to heat, moisture, and pollutants which can cause destructive physical and chemical reactions."  Not sure how to respond.  I think if I were hanging this in a childs waiting area or carwash I could put glass over it, but in a gallery?  I have dozens and dozens of images that are 5yrs old, they all look fine.  I have only owned the ipf8400 for 5 years.  Older images printed on HP also look fine.  I do not expect my art to last 200 years, not that important.   By the way, glass is not listed in the requirements anywhere.   Does everyone else put glass over their images?  Again, I just do not like the look.   I guess if anyone actually buys one, they can put glass over it if they choose?
By the way, I donated these to a fund raiser.  6prints 24x36".  My framer charges roughly $100/piece for museum glass this size so that was another issue. 
Gary

Do you coat your prints? If not then apply an initial varnish spray like Moab to seal it against water and then over that apply several coats of a water based one like Eco Print Shield or Timeless. This should address their objections. 

[MHMG]

It seems silly to me too.  Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting.  Someday the art community will wake up.  I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings.  For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily.

Actually, some museums do put glazing in front of valuable paintings. AR coated acrylic is a modern choice by conservators. Glazing is becoming more commonplace as curators and conservators have begun to worry more today about random acts of vandalism or misguided attempts to touch the work by the general public.

That said, back in 1999 on a visit I made to the Museum of Modern Art in N.Y.C. (MOMA), the public was indeed able to walk right up to Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and other priceless works of art. I would not be surprised if such intimate viewing of the work is no longer the case today. Here's what the viewing experience was like in 1999. https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/

As for photos being easily reproducible, that is sometimes but not always the case. The obvious example being any signed work. Moreover, even with sentimental family photos, making a high quality copy entails both time and expense. Always easier to print more than one copy at the start and put one away in a safer environment than to try to copy/reprint after the fact. That's my 2 cents

[funfoto]

It's your art work. The artist should decide how he want's the public to view it and how it's displayed.
Not that long ago I was in a show of my night photography. The glass/plexiglass killed the viewing experience. I decided to show without the glass. The work stood out and popped visually on the wall, and everyone commented. It was a pleasure viewing the work and not seeing yourself and the gallery reflected (and competing) with the photograph. I now refuse to put glass over my images for a show, especially if they are dark images.

[petermfiore]

It's your art work. The artist should decide how he want's the public to view it and how it's displayed.

Not always is that possible. The museum and the gallery's insurance company will dictate what the policy will be. Or, no payment for damages.

Peter

[gchappel]

4 of the 6 images are very dark black and white.  Glass really detracts from how I want them to look.
I already signed waivers for insurance, so not the issue.
At least my works I can easily reprint if damaged.
Thanks for the support.  I wrote back that basically it is my choice to be without glass or cover.
I am waiting to see what they say.
Gary

[MHMG]

4 of the 6 images are very dark black and white.  Glass really detracts from how I want them to look.
I already signed waivers for insurance, so not the issue.
At least my works I can easily reprint if damaged.
Thanks for the support.  I wrote back that basically it is my choice to be without glass or cover.
I am waiting to see what they say.
Gary

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't accommodate your desire to display without glazing. IMHO, it's all about artist's original intent. If the artist wants the presentation to the viewer to be without glazing, then so be it. There's no wrong answer here.

A major museum once had an exhibit of an artwork created by the Starn Brothers. Pieces attached with cellophane tape started to fall off the work as the exhibit carried on. Conservators asked the artists "what should we do about this?". The Starn brothers replied (I'm taking some liberties here to paraphrase), but the gist of it was "let the bits and pieces now on the floor in the gallery be part of the work. It's performance art".

As you are the artist of the work in this discussion, It's your call! The gallery may reject you, but it shouldn't. There's plenty of precedent long established in favor of artist's original intent.

good luck,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[chez]

Not always is that possible. The museum and the gallery's insurance company will dictate what the policy will be. Or, no payment for damages.

Peter

One can then choose not to exhibit at that gallery.

[Ferp]

Actually, some museums do put glazing in front of valuable paintings. AR coated acrylic is a modern choice by conservators. Glazing is becoming more commonplace as curators and conservators have begun to worry more today about random acts of vandalism or misguided attempts to touch the work by the general public.

That said, back in 1999 on a visit I made to the Museum of Modern Art in N.Y.C. (MOMA), the public was indeed able to walk right up to Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and other priceless works of art. I would not be surprised if such intimate viewing of the work is no longer the case today. Here's what the viewing experience was like in 1999. https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/

I've just been to an exhibition of paintings like Starry Night - same vintage and genre - although perhaps not quite that valuable.  Many were glassed (or acryliced), but with the right lighting and the right glass it wasn't a problem.  In fact it was a bit of a game to work out which ones were glassed and which ones not, so good was the glass and light.  But with less than ideal glass and light then it would be a distraction. The unanswered question for this exhibition was why only some?

[petermfiore]

One can then choose not to exhibit at that gallery.

Exactly...

[Alan Klein]

Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home?  Would you leave them unglazed or not?

[gchappel]

Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home?  Would you leave them unglazed or not?

I have only been printing with proper technique and pigmented oem inks for about 10 years, hp9180, epson 3800, canon ipf8400.
I have at least 60 large framed prints that are rotated seasonally, about 10 hanging at any one time. 
A few are 10yrs old, most are 3-5yrs.
I live in Florida.  These hang in the sun, in the kitchen, in harsh environments. 
I have never had one damaged yet, nope- not one. 
I have had to replace the matboard twice.  One got dirty in storage, one got a grease smear from someones finger.  But I have never replaced a print.
I have one print of peeling paint on an old wall that is so 3d people are constantly wiping at it, thinking something is stuck to the print.  It is 3yrs old and fine.  This did have to have the mat replaced.
Your mileage my vary, but at least in my environment I see no reason for protection or glass.
Gary

[Alan Goldhammer]

Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home?  Would you leave them unglazed or not?

For pictures at home I use poster hangers that Jorgen Moller designed.  Prints can be swapped in and out in less than a minute.  No frames, no plexi, no mats, no sprays at all.

[dgberg]

My studio workshop has 137 hanging images plus another 52 in my house, none with glass. (My kids know what they are getting when I die!)
All are either canvas or dye sublimated products. Some over 10 years old and they all look great.
Any paper or canvas prints have some sort of protection, spray or vinyl laminate.
I have about a half dozen paper prints with a satin vinyl laminate attached and they hold up as good or better then the sprayed canvas.
Canvases are sprayed with either Timeless or Glamor II.
These prints may not be covered with glass but they are all protected one way or another.

[Alan Klein]

For pictures at home I use poster hangers that Jorgen Moller designed.  Prints can be swapped in and out in less than a minute.  No frames, no plexi, no mats, no sprays at all.

Alan, what covers the picture if anything.  Does it reflect, etc.?

[gchappel]

Thanks all, I am truly trying to learn.
I have done photography for a long long time.
It took a couple of years, but my printing is now ok.
Framing and hanging is a new world for me.
Dan, may I ask what laminate you are using?  I have access to a cold roll laminator and could give that a try.   
I use the poster hangers at home as well, works great for a few areas I like to look at images, then change them. 
Gary

[dgberg]

I have a hot roll laminator for Seal's Print Guard Luster or Matte. Great stuff!
Seal's Print Shield Luster or matte is the cold roll material.
Plenty of other manufactures have similar products.
Do not like any of the matte laminates.
Like looking through wax paper.

[PeterAit]

It seems silly to me too.  Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting.  Someday the art community will wake up.  I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings.  For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily.

Well, not quite every image - think an original Paul Strand. But for most others, exactly right.