A FACTS Editorial

Ron Eggers

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Posts
16,932
Loc
Wisconsin
In addition to the FACTS survey thread, there is an ongoing thread about the good things in FACTS (started by Terry Scidmore, a self-proclaimed detractor who I have difficulty getting mad at) and another about the bad things, started by JRB (who I sometimes get mad at, but generally respect anyway.)

People complain that FACTS is too complicated, and I see it getting more complicated by the minute here on The Grumble.

In my mind, there is a big difference between operating a business with all due diligence and conducting it with the expectation that the next customer though the door is going to take you to court. The latter puts you in an adversarial position with the very people who are paying the bills.

My support of FACTS has nothing to do with whether it will put me in a better or worse position in the event of litigation. Given the climate of our legal system, I agree with others who have said that, in the event of a suit, you may as well settle or just kiss your *** good-bye.

My support of FACTS is all about a desire and a need for as much information as possible regarding the materials and procedures we use in our business. I really don't care whether we call them 'standards' or 'guidelines.' It makes no difference to me if we discuss 'maximum preservation' or 'minimum.'

I rely on my experience and alleged good sense to tell me when it's appropriate to apply which standards, and I am comfortable that nobody from the FACTS steering committee is going to come and arrest me if I don't apply 100% of them 100% of the time.

FACTS is part of the mix for me. I'm not ignoring the PPFA guidelines. I'm not ignoring what I read on TG (not all of it, anyway.) I'm not a FACTS evangelist and I don't really expect that it will ever enjoy the support of the majority of framers.

I just don't understand this notion that support of FACTS, or lack of support, is dependent on who you think will benefit most in the courtroom. And I surely don't understand how it is that information becomes a threat.
 
Ron and others who are reading this


The FACTS standards are the MAXIMUM level. I remember Don Pierce stated this several times at meetings and trade show booths that everthing framed is not going to be MAXIMUM all the time. It is simply a GOAL for the best in a non controlled envirnment. Without a goal we have no objective for the best we can do to protect our clients property.
thumbsup.gif


Less we forget, all museums do not have the funds and staff to have all of their collection in a perfectly controlled envirnment 24/7/365 (all the time) .
 
I wish that were true, Jerry.

There was considerable discussion at the Sunday morning vendor meeting in Atlanta in 2002 about whether the FACTS standards are the maximum standards for the care and treatment of fine art or the minimum.

I think we decided they are the minimum standards for maximum preservation.

And this, my friends, is the biggest problem I see with FACTS. Most of its detractors (though I'm not one of them) would seem to agree.

But, yes, the standards were never intended to be applied to everything we frame. That fact is one of the standards.
 
Ron, FACTS is just another tool that COULD become evidence in a courtroom. Their are many publications in our industry that could also be used the same way.

It's just that the FACTS document is so completely overwhelming to read, I see very few framers ever picking it up. THAT is what could hurt them in a court room. By not reading it, understanding it, and practicing what they have read, it could be damaging to anyones case if there ever was one.

It is easy to say just bend over and kiss your butt goodbye if you get sued, but what does that mean? The first thing is your business and means of a livelihood is going to be lost. What if you own a home or farm, stocks, savings, even a life insurance policy?

FACTS is taking just about every thing we know in our industry and presenting it in a form that probably less than twenty five percent of all framers will read and/or understand. It will protect those few who do, it will be a liability to those that don't. Since the majority of framers are probably NOT going to read and understand this document, doesn't that pose a threat to them?

All of the information in FACTS can be presented in a much more user friendly format, why is it not?

Is it that we want our industry to appear to be a real, grown up industry. Who are we emulating with this document?

Our industry is one of the oldest professions around, who are we trying to be like?

John
 
One of the most difficult assignments I had in school was to try to write a definition of a chair. The definition has to be both <u>inclusive</u> and <u>exclusive</u> i.e. it had to exclude appliances like stools and benches but include things like an umpires perch at a tennis match. It was tough.

The FACTS document is like trying to write such a definition but with the added difficulty of its being composed by committee. My main objection to FACTS is what they exclude i.e. “art” unworthy of “Maximum Preservation Framing”, e.g. junior’s 3d grade project using crayons and pastels on construction paper which has been stuffed for three weeks in his socks drawer. But, that document states (1.01) “ … for use when framing artwork that is, or may become, valuable. Either monetarily, or for historic, collector, or sentimental purposes. This document provides the guides for maximum preservation when framing artwork of any kind.”

Juniors “art” qualifies under this standard. Maybe? Maybe not? This document does not spell out these exceptions well enough, in my opinion. If junior’s art does qualify, I cannot dry mount this “art” to keep it flat (standard 8.01); I cannot frame it without a mat or spacer with an oak moulding (standard 10.02); and I cannot use regular glass (9.01) even though it may be hung in a closet.

I commend people who were and are committed to giving their time to produce such a document. However, once documents like FACTS are committed to the written (or electronic) page, as much as some would deny it, they become “<u>law</u>”, and without any alternative, THE source of reference. As picture framing professionals we can pick and choose what parts of it we should include or exclude, but, I fear, the lay public (and worse, lawyers) will see these codified pages as gospel.

It is very difficult to defend a contrary position when others may use this “official” standard.
 
I tried to stay out of this ,to allow more articulate and knowledgable people ,like Ron ,Nona and Jim ,to respond.
However I feel the need to ask John a question or two.
First John you say;
>>>>Since the majority of framers are probably NOT going to read and understand this document, doesn't that pose a threat to them? <<<
John if I'm not mistaken you and many others don't see the need for the CPF either. However I doubt seriuosly that you feel that since ya'll haven't studied all the suggested text,you are any less a knowledgable Framer. Which is as it should be. Therefore if you or any other Framer doesn't study or become completely versed on what the FACTS guidelines say why should you feel;"NOT going to read and understand this document, doesn't that pose a threat to them?"
As has been said ,ad nauseam, the FACTS text or any other is a guideline Not a contract .You and all others should know and practice the GOOD stuff already on a daily basis.So no new threat will occur with the publics exposer to FACTS or any other set of written Guidelines.

Also when you say :"All of the information in FACTS can be presented in a much more user friendly format, why is it not? "
I guess the answer to this is that some people spend more time pointing out the faults then joining in the effort to do just that. Isn't that what happens with most written guidelins? People start saying why it won't work or can't be easily understood but don't sit down and make positive suggestion that may improve an already GOOD DOCUMENT.
Now that I've irratated the people who can really answer your question with my personal babble ,I'll allow them to answer you correctly.
BUDDY
 
My first post. Not intended as an insult to anyone...

[Perspectives are based on prior career in information technology, where international standards and standards setting bodies are accepted, beneficial (when implemented to the letter of the standard), and much debated (as I find here for FACTS).]

I am truly not intimately familiar with the details of the FACTS standards. I know they exist, they are recognized by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.'s standards setting agency), and I applaud those in the framing/art care industry trying to improve it by providing a "reference standard" against which a certain level of performance and quality may be claimed (note that "reference" is a key standards concept).

First, to be valuable, standards must be widely (read: internationally) peer reviewed. Thus the need for precise, often cumbersome language. Some may claim "legalese", but the "shalls", etc. are the basics of international standards language.

For those who are "legally fearful" of FACTS, don't make any claims about compliance to its standards. Protect personal assets through homesteading, insurance, incorporating (or forming a limited liability company if a legal business entity in your state), etc.

But understand that in the increasingly competitive future, customers who are aware of FACTS, and who require an assurance of a specific level of care for their valuable art and/or heirlooms, will seek out professionals who can confidently claim compliance to internationally-accepted standards of art care. That's one of the foundation beliefs upon which I am starting my entrepreneurial venture in this industry.

Now for reality and practicality: I recognize the need for and economics of non-preservation decorative framing.

Ron
 
Buddy, read Bill Henry's response, just above yours.

Everyone seems to have valid points for and against FACTS. Like I said on another thread, the cat is out of the bag now. The document now exists, we can't just erase it. The only thing we can do now is make a user friendly version so that it becomes more read, like "FACTS for Idiots", or some such thing. Perhaps that is the answer, send a copy of FACTS to the publishers of all those "For Idiots" books and see if they can make it more manageable.

John
 
Ron Martin,

Good first post. Great, maybe. And from an interesting perspective.

Welcome to The Grumble. Visit often and speak up when you feel the urge.

John, I think a lot of the attention right now is being focused on producing a user-friendly FACTS for Dummies (no insult intended to any of us dummies.) I visualize this as a supplement, not a replacement, to the original documents.
 
Ron, I agree with you on that one. The FACTS document exists, nothing can be done about that now. What can be done is creating a readable version of it so that the slow whited framers like myself will be able to read it without falling asleep. One thing for sure, now that it exists, the prudent framer should familiarize themselves with it. I can't get past the first page the way it is now. Only time in my life I liked manuals was my military years, kind of needed them.

John
 
John I yield .I am obviously makeing a mess of explaining my point of view and why i have it.
To that end I suggest as you have that you read the post above yours (Ron Martin's) .I truly thought I made some of those same points some time back( not as eloquently BUT).Do you remeber when you said that standards applied to hazardous industrys,but not FRAMING?
I did read and re-read Bill Henery's post and I didn't think the public was unexposed as yet.But you still have a choice.And consumers can ASSUME anything they wish.I think that was what the attorney meant by "Anyone can sue for almost anything" .The stregnth of the documetation is you have proof that their (consumers) assumptions are erronious.
However as I said "I yield to much better and more eliquent explanations."I don't want to messs up a good thing any further.
BUDDY
PS I am sure there are some on the FACTS side that are very grateful for my capitulation.LOL
 
Buddy, if all the members of The Grumble worked for one company, this would be called brainstorming.

It would be a completely useless meeting if we all agreed with each other. The only way we can solve or improve on issues is by batting ideas around with each other. Sometimes I agree with your position, sometimes I don't, no matter what though, your position is VERY important to this process. Capitulation is NOT the answer.

The only ideas on The Grumble that are completely worthless are the ones that are never posted.

This is why I have always encouraged lurkers to become active contributers. The real value of The Grumble is us, the active members. The more people contributing, the better our chances of arriving at the right conclusions to our various issues.

In short, don't you dare capitulate, we need your input if we want this to work.

I learned this working for Aaron Brothers in the early days. I was invited to many meetings I had no business attending, they liked my input because every now and then I came up with a winner, just like everyone else. The more minds, the better.

John
 
Buddy, for what it's worth, I have a lot easier time understanding your points than I do Ron Martin's.
BTW Ron, welcome to the flay, I mean fray, or exchange as whichever the case may be.

For my part, I have been thinking a lot about the FACTS document and the dozen or so personal emails that I have gotten about such in just the last couple of weeks.

For some reason I keep thinking about the bible. Many talk about it, many quote it, but **** few have read it.
One of the fastest argument starters is to ask which "Version", which is what John is talking about coming up with (FACTS for Dummies).

I'm with John, except, I have read many pages. I even thought about printing it out once, because I have a duplexing printer...... what I don't have is 1) enough paper & 2) a fast enough DSL. so I search for snippets. What I can't find is the research certain "Shall" standards.

It's taken 15 years to get this far, and with at least this kind of active PUBLIC discussion (as appossed to executive conclave), we may have a working document that is a valid, well thought-out, easy to use, REFERENCE for those who are in need: such as newbies who had a previous career and decided to just "buy" a new career with no background in framing.

But then, that would be opening that who "Industry of Refugees" discussion again.....

baer
 
Such standards as those outlined by FACTS - are a resource that we can not progress without in modern society. Picture Framing has evolved, as have the environments within which it operates, the existence of "Big Box" outlets along with modern home design are strong indicators of this.

Standards must have exacting and definite points and the use of intricate language that can be harder understand is essential so as to avoid confusion about the actual points, unfortunately in so doing it can often create confusion as the type of language used is not common in the earlier education sectors of society (nor is it often encountered by many, and is perhaps forgotten).

The documents are a resource from which an employer can establish a basis for training and procedural documentation, such documentation can be established either by the employer or by third party educators. It is necessary for the reference to be valid and non-bias. The foundation created by FACTS will certainly be (and has been) a major part of my efforts to establish reasonably comprehensive Operating Procedures within our Framing facilities. Such procedures are essential in maintaining suitable conditions for employees, having a procedure is necessary for every common task, this not only helps to improve staff awareness of the issues that they face, it also lessens the likely-hood of employers being challenged for dismissing a staff member who is not being reliable in an area that there is not a procedure for (e.g. constantly miss-reading a tape measure when no procedure is available for the staff to refer to, and learn from).

The expectation of lawyers breathing down your neck is far more realistic from employment issues and non-compliance than it is from consumers wanting to break our butts.

Consider the FACTS standards as a set of rules that could be verbalised during the sales process if it’s the consumer you want to inform, it is the ability of the salesperson that will dictate the consumers impressions. It is indeed up to each individual to determine their exact technique and the relevant issues at the time. Perhaps the salespeople on the Grumble can offer some paraphrases of the standards that they might incorporate into their sales demonstration?
 
To anyone who cares;I think that exact and precise langaugh helps make any statement better understood.(I know with my history that seems like a real contradiction,BUT).In that vien comments like Ron Martin's are to me precisely what a document needs to be.
Makeing the wording "USER FRIENDLY" is a nice concept but I strongly belive that it can friendly to one person and not another ,and trying to make it friendly to everyone may be all but impossible.
However if it is precise to the extent that it defines the meaning of single words prior to makeing it's actual statemnet then it should be understandable by anyone who can read.It may take some more time than others but they all should arrive at the same place if they have an open mind.
However it is exactly this belief that makes me feel that after hearing and makeing several comments that "TO ME" all say the same thing only in different words and still to be resisted ,that my best efforts or useless.
And since this is an important concept I feel it may be ME or my efforts that is blockng the progress.This is what lead me to my previous comment.
But fear not, there are much more articulate and grammatically correct writters who will discuss the issue .My Capitulation was based on the belief that my comments were making it difficult for some to graspe the good this Documentis doing.
BUDDY
BUDDY
 
Do any of you need FACTS to frame pictures?

Sorry, Ron, but I can still turn up a fiber mux without the exhaustive Bell System Practice, which comprises aboout 600 pages.

The FACTS debate is turning into a Republican vs Democrat thing.

Charles, Certified Electrician Technician
 
This is a copy of the synopsis which is a bit easier to understand and read but refers back to the original document. The language of the original must be what it is to be consistant with other standard setting bodies. Re-read Lance E and Ron Martin's posts, they really cover the why and the how very well.

FACTS PRESERVATION FRAMING GUIDELINE #FRM-2000
SYNOPSIS
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph 1.00 Introduction. The guideline provides the guides for preservation when framing artwork of any kind.

Paragraph 2.00 General Considerations. Allows Guideline exceptions to accommodate the wishes of the client, availability of materials and/or techniques. Protective features shall be noted.

Paragraph 3.01: The objective of preservation framing is to create a non-invasive environment, and to protect the item from anticipated hazards.

Paragraph 5.02: All procedures performed with any materials that include attachment to the artwork shall be reversible without damage to either the artwork or its support.

Paragraph 5.05: Artwork shall be completely separated and isolated from any potentially damaging materials by an impermeable barrier such as glass or metal.

Paragraph 6.02: All materials shall be safe for the item

Paragraph 6.03: Paints & inks shall be non-bleed and non-migrating.

Paragraph 8.01: All attachments shall be removable without damage to the artwork or its support. (Hinging method must be easily removable with clear water, leaving no residue behind)

Paragraph 9.01: Refers to FACTS GLZ-2001 6.02, which states that for glazing to be recognized as having significant UV Blocking Qualities, it shall block no less than 70 percent of all light in the 300 to 400 nanometer range.

Paragraph 10.01: Artwork should be separated from the glazing by window mats or spacers. Minimum is one 4 ply matboard for small frames; greater separation for larger frames, as needed to prevent contact of the artwork with the glazing.

Paragraph 10.02: All artwork shall be at minimum one inch away from all wood surfaces including wood frames, fillets and liners. 10.03: unless the wood has a gas-impermeable barrier.

Paragraph 11.01: The back of the frame shall be sealed with a non-invasive material to reduce the invasion of pests and normal dust contamination.

Paragraph 11.03: Frame shall be sized to allow for normal expansion and contraction of the art; (11.04) shall be of sufficient size and/or strength to securely hold the art; (11.07) hanging method and materials should be adequate; (12.01) designed to place minimum stress on the frame; (12.03) equipped with a method of spacing out from the wall a minimum of 0.100 inch (bumpers on frames lower corners)

Paragraph 14 contains Guidelines for Periodic Maintenance Considerations. 14.01: Preservation results from proper framing, good display conditions and periodic care. All are at the discretion of the owner.

Paragraph 15 summarizes the guideline:
n Only materials and techniques considered safe for that artwork shall be employed in framing.
n After preservation framing has been performed, the condition of the artwork is dependent upon display conditions and periodic care and maintenance by the owner.
n Information concerning preservation and proper display conditions shall be discussed with the client.... the client shall approve all frame design features, whether protective or not.
 
No document is ever perfect and the Guidelines, which are meant to be guidelines only, are different than the standards set for materials which are definite. Both will be reviewed on a regular basis. As far as writing to describe something, I do it all the time for articles and books and it is very hard to make a three dimensional thing come alive with words. VERY HARD!!!

Nona Powers, CPF
www.nonapowers.com
www.artfacts.org
 
Back
Top