A
Arno Jan Riise
Guest
CPFG-PPFA Response Commentary and Open Letter
I have read and enjoyed various picture framing forums for some time now. I am an octogenarian and a conservator now retired. Our family operates modest framing and art enterprises in the United States, Europe, and in Canada where I am now visiting. Since I no longer practice professionally I travel back and forth between operations to keep myself active and to help out where I am able. I follow the forum discussions strictly for enjoyment. After having read some current letters I feel compelled to opinionate and perhaps stimulate some constructive thoughts.
Why is it that we in the arts professions must always learn the hard way? Why is it we treat some our best people the most shabbily? Over the years I have seen arts associations come and go. I have seen associations fractionate and become lame ducks simply because they insisted upon shooting themselves in the foot. The tone of the current CPFG-PPFA discussion is symptomatic of history repeating itself.
I have been a curator and conservator for almost sixty years. I have worked as an art consultant to governments, museums, galleries and private interests in Europe, Canada and in the United States. Over the years I have seen many changes happen. I have seen fine art conservation move from a collect and display mentality to being a respected science, where it stands today. I have seen picture framing develop into an industry. In spite of the dramatic technological changes happening in the whole spectrum of the arts industry some of the human element in it seems never to change.
Recent discussions published in the HBFN, the PPFA Hitchhikers forum and in the Picture Framers Grumble should give us reason for concern. I see history repeating itself. I see the PPFA becoming a house divided by its own hand. Speak out I will because no one can fire me and I am too old to worry about sticks and stones. After I say my piece I will go back to being a retired listener and I promise no response or follow-up.
Even though our family's American operations have enjoyed some benefit from U.S. PPFA membership, we will not be renewing. We are shocked over the PPFA's reluctance to act upon a flagrant violation of the PPFA Code of Ethics incident involving unprofessional deportment publicly exhibited by a cadre of members. We question the PPFA's integrity.
Pragmatically speaking we are in the fortunate position of being able to compare PPFA benefits on both sides of the border. We conclude that the benefits to our Canadian branch are scant and therefore prohibitively expensive. We have attended PPFA workshops and seminars in both the U.S. and in Canada and concluded that far too many of them seem to have a hidden agenda focusing upon enhancing the reputations of the presenters. When we weighed all factors we decided that our Canadian branch would not join the PPFA and that we would not renew in the U.S. The key issue for us is the Code of Ethics violation because we are of the mind that it may be symptomatic of greater underlying illness.
I am gratified by the high quality of technical questions and responses being communicated in most of the forums and I am happy that so much attention is being paid to conservation framing. The time is long past due for picture framers to be more professional in the technical aspect. I see that happening. It is particularly gratifying to see cooperative postings between conservators and framers. Although there are many excellent contributors, I particularly enjoy the advice, conversations, and comments generated by Orton Carberry.
Unfortunately Mr. Carberry was the target of unwarranted and repeated hostility in the PPFA forum from PPFA members Fredericks, Ranes and Fremstad. I identify the offenders because they acted publicly against Mr. Carberry. Their behavior was offensive. Mr. Carberry very quietly left the PPFA forum and has not made any contributions since leaving. PPFA members in that forum lost a valuable resource. I am at a loss to understand why the PPFA did not censure the offenders. The professional organizations that I am familiar with would have intervened immediately within the authority of their mandate to ensure that an appropriate level of public decorum and dignity was being maintained. Incredibly the PPFA sat on its hands and did nothing. In my opinion the PPFA undertook a giant step backward.
If I correctly understand what I have been reading in the forums the PPFA was reluctant to apply its own rules concerning ethics and behavior. Even the most charitable of observers cannot help but note the application of a double standard. Mr. Carberry cannot be faulted for objecting to that double standard. Is it little wonder that other conservators and curators do not participate in these framing forums far more frequently? Who would want to be treated in like manner? Who would want to be associated with "unprofessionalism?" The behavior exhibited by the offenders was unprofessional and offensive. For certain it was disgusting. The PPFA must be harshly criticized for its voluntary inaction.
The PPFA Code of Ethics states that "a member of Professional Picture Framers Association shall maintain a dignity of manner and behavior in the presentation of services and in ALL [emphasis is mine] other forms of professional conduct." If the PPFA is to be successful in living up to the professional image that it attempts to project, it must fastidiously observe its own rules. If the rules of common decency are to be observed the offenders must apologize first to Mr. Carberry, second to the PPFA, and third to the PPFA membership at large for having behaved unprofessionally contrary to the PPFA Code of Ethics. The PPFA needs to apologize to Mr. Carberry.
I have degrees in engineering, curatorial sciences, and fine arts, and hold a doctorate in organic chemistry, as does Mr. Carberry if my understanding is accurate. I am accustomed to speaking in "technicalese" to technically oriented people at a technical level that is usually not employed by lay persons. I confess I often have been guilty of speaking in technical language forgetting that I may not always have been understood by my listeners. I do not mean to do it, it is just a habit from many years of routinely communicating within my peer group. Yet Mr. Carberry presents highly technical and complex information accurately and in plain language in a style that the laity can understand. Not only are his responses accurate and uncolored by superfluous jargon but his style of writing makes for enjoyable reading. Many picture framers and conservators alike have benefited from his contributions.
Some time ago I had the occasion to inspect some framed art and pleasantly discovered that the framing workmanship and conservation technique used was stunningly superb. It was far superior to what anyone in that organization would have ever taken the time to do, was certainly far superior to any work the organization had ever contracted out, and was not the quality that I expected. It was one of the technically best pieces that I had seen in a long time. The sticker on the back read "Orton T. Carberry, CPF" who proved to be the same Orton Carberry whose forum responses I had been reading. Since that time I have had occasions to inspected more of Mr. Carberry's works and again found them to be consistently superb.
Too often framers are told to follow proper conservation framing procedure only to observe that in practice proper procedure is compromised and rationalized. I saw it happen frequently in my institutional work and I would guess that most framing shops see it happen every day. In an industry that says it wants to encourage conservation framing but seems to be more preoccupied with the "bottom line" and with quantity instead of quality, you Mr. Carberry, are to be commended for practicing what is preached. Good sir, you are an asset to the art and framing industry.
Two years ago at one of his lectures Mr. Carberry presented arguments vigorously supporting the PPFA which resulted in some of our family joining the PPFA. He was a very strong and convincing advocate of the PPFA. Today he is not so strong an advocate of the PPFA and is revisiting a separate picture framers association for Canadian framers, the Canadian Picture Framers Guild. Forum traffic is suggestive that there are others who may be thinking along parallel lines.
I have followed the Code of Ethics incident from its beginning and after listening to the current CPFG-PPFA discourse I cannot help but support Mr. Carberry's position. I take this one step further and suggest that the PPFA has breached membership trust by ignoring its own standards. There is no allowable latitude or gray area for mis-interpretation here. Either the PPFA is professional or it is not. Either the PPFA means what it says or it does not. There is no room for shilly-shallying about!
The PPFA rules state that members will conduct "all" forms of their conduct with dignity. The behavior exhibited by the offenders was less than dignified. The PPFA's ignoring of the matter is certainly less than dignified and is ethically wrong. Mr. Carberry paid his membership fee in good faith but has the PPFA acted in good faith? Is the PPFA truly sincere about its intentions or is it a scandal?
We support Mr. Carberry's quest to maintain sound ethics. Until this matter is satisfactorily addressed by the PPFA, PPFA membership will not be considered by any of our sites. At present the PPFA does not have our confidence. It is our opinion that the PPFA breached our membership trust and left an injustice unresolved. We support Mr. Carberry's petition requesting that the PPFA adhere to its own rules. I ask the PPFA where its morals are. Why does the PPFA have to be asked to apply its own mandate?
I fail to understand the logic of alienating contributors of goodwill and technical expertise. Is it pride? Is it being afraid to say "We are sorry, we made a mistake?" Is it because Mr. Carberry is not among an elite Establishment within the PPFA? If the answer is yes, I see no hope for the PPFA, because that attitude creates factions. Factions within associations demoralize and will result in the attrition of valued people. If the answer is "No, we are not afraid to acknowledge that we made a mistake" the PPFA must quickly act in good faith, publicly redress its breach of trust, and say "We are sorry, we made a mistake, it will not happen again." If the PPFA truly values its membership and is sincere in its mission statement it must make the first move toward reconciliation and it must move without delay. To again fail to act will only confirm that the PPFA does not intend to act in the best interests of all of its members.
The real subject for consideration in this discussion goes beyond suggestion of issue over hurt feelings and personal sensitivities. This is not an issue about Mr. Carberry. His role was only to have brought the matter into daylight. It is not even a question of unprofessional behavior by delinquent members (their behavior is still open to address by the PPFA under its Code of Ethics.) The real issue goes far beyond.
This should be regarded as being a very serious matter because it is about a breach in the fundamental operating philosophy of the PPFA. The fundamental issue is willful neglect by the governing body, the PPFA. It is an issue of corporate unwillingness to practice what it preaches. It is about corporate mores and ethics and corporate reluctance to provide for the welfare of all its members as stated in its own Statement of Mission.
Over the years the PPFA has put forth much effort striving to raise its esteem in the eyes of potential members and of the market place. If the PPFA continues to ignore this matter in the hopes that it will simply go away history shows that the PPFA will likely be the author of its own loss of integrity. Doubtlessly members will continue to lose faith in the PPFA because the PPFA will have amply demonstrated that ordinary members are subject to different rules than a few special members who are allowed to operate outside of the association's rules. Fractionation, a divided house, and consequent decline in member support will surely result. Those who in the past, and in the present, worked hard toward establishing the PPFA's credibility will have been betrayed.
Marketers teach that consumers measure an industry's attractiveness by looking at that industry's integrity. A measure of an industry's integrity is its ethics. The PPFA needs to look within its own walls to re-assess its internal ethics track record. It is time for the PPFA to remove the blinders.
This breaching of fundamentals may be a clear indicator of what PPFA members may expect in the future. Who will be next? New framers? Left-handed framers? Framers who wear glasses? Framers who operate out of their homes?
The PPFA preaches that reference to "home-based" framers is offensive but what positive steps has the PPFA taken beyond mumbling a few comforting words and coining a few alternative phrases to replace the term "home-based?" What has the PPFA actually done to help these members? Has the PPFA helped home-based members re-establish supplier connections? The answer seems to be "no." Should home-based framers re-assess their role within the PPFA because the PPFA also may not be sincere in protecting home-based member interests? Until the PPFA puts its own house in order is there reason why anyone should believe what the PPFA says?
All members of the PPFA are supposed to be treated with dignity and respect. The PPFA declares that this must be. To date the PPFA has failed Mr. Carberry and every other member who believed that the PPFA was sincere in maintaining dignified professional conduct. The onus to mend fences is heavily in the PPFA's court. The PPFA's integrity is very much at stake.
Mr. Carberry I thank you for having the intestinal fortitude to hold the PPFA accountable. Thank you for being patient with the PPFA. In doing so you have revealed a fundamental but repairable weakness in the PPFA's structure. The PPFA has been fairly warned that failure to implement just redress will inevitably result in continued erosion of morale. If the PPFA continues to insist on excusing its own breach of its own rules, it will end up being just another lame duck.
Under those circumstances I would support an alternative framers' association not only for Canada but also for the U.S.
Yours sincerely
Arno Jan Riise, B.Th., PEng., M.F.A., PhD.
[This message has been edited by Arno Jan Riise (edited November 03, 2000).]
I have read and enjoyed various picture framing forums for some time now. I am an octogenarian and a conservator now retired. Our family operates modest framing and art enterprises in the United States, Europe, and in Canada where I am now visiting. Since I no longer practice professionally I travel back and forth between operations to keep myself active and to help out where I am able. I follow the forum discussions strictly for enjoyment. After having read some current letters I feel compelled to opinionate and perhaps stimulate some constructive thoughts.
Why is it that we in the arts professions must always learn the hard way? Why is it we treat some our best people the most shabbily? Over the years I have seen arts associations come and go. I have seen associations fractionate and become lame ducks simply because they insisted upon shooting themselves in the foot. The tone of the current CPFG-PPFA discussion is symptomatic of history repeating itself.
I have been a curator and conservator for almost sixty years. I have worked as an art consultant to governments, museums, galleries and private interests in Europe, Canada and in the United States. Over the years I have seen many changes happen. I have seen fine art conservation move from a collect and display mentality to being a respected science, where it stands today. I have seen picture framing develop into an industry. In spite of the dramatic technological changes happening in the whole spectrum of the arts industry some of the human element in it seems never to change.
Recent discussions published in the HBFN, the PPFA Hitchhikers forum and in the Picture Framers Grumble should give us reason for concern. I see history repeating itself. I see the PPFA becoming a house divided by its own hand. Speak out I will because no one can fire me and I am too old to worry about sticks and stones. After I say my piece I will go back to being a retired listener and I promise no response or follow-up.
Even though our family's American operations have enjoyed some benefit from U.S. PPFA membership, we will not be renewing. We are shocked over the PPFA's reluctance to act upon a flagrant violation of the PPFA Code of Ethics incident involving unprofessional deportment publicly exhibited by a cadre of members. We question the PPFA's integrity.
Pragmatically speaking we are in the fortunate position of being able to compare PPFA benefits on both sides of the border. We conclude that the benefits to our Canadian branch are scant and therefore prohibitively expensive. We have attended PPFA workshops and seminars in both the U.S. and in Canada and concluded that far too many of them seem to have a hidden agenda focusing upon enhancing the reputations of the presenters. When we weighed all factors we decided that our Canadian branch would not join the PPFA and that we would not renew in the U.S. The key issue for us is the Code of Ethics violation because we are of the mind that it may be symptomatic of greater underlying illness.
I am gratified by the high quality of technical questions and responses being communicated in most of the forums and I am happy that so much attention is being paid to conservation framing. The time is long past due for picture framers to be more professional in the technical aspect. I see that happening. It is particularly gratifying to see cooperative postings between conservators and framers. Although there are many excellent contributors, I particularly enjoy the advice, conversations, and comments generated by Orton Carberry.
Unfortunately Mr. Carberry was the target of unwarranted and repeated hostility in the PPFA forum from PPFA members Fredericks, Ranes and Fremstad. I identify the offenders because they acted publicly against Mr. Carberry. Their behavior was offensive. Mr. Carberry very quietly left the PPFA forum and has not made any contributions since leaving. PPFA members in that forum lost a valuable resource. I am at a loss to understand why the PPFA did not censure the offenders. The professional organizations that I am familiar with would have intervened immediately within the authority of their mandate to ensure that an appropriate level of public decorum and dignity was being maintained. Incredibly the PPFA sat on its hands and did nothing. In my opinion the PPFA undertook a giant step backward.
If I correctly understand what I have been reading in the forums the PPFA was reluctant to apply its own rules concerning ethics and behavior. Even the most charitable of observers cannot help but note the application of a double standard. Mr. Carberry cannot be faulted for objecting to that double standard. Is it little wonder that other conservators and curators do not participate in these framing forums far more frequently? Who would want to be treated in like manner? Who would want to be associated with "unprofessionalism?" The behavior exhibited by the offenders was unprofessional and offensive. For certain it was disgusting. The PPFA must be harshly criticized for its voluntary inaction.
The PPFA Code of Ethics states that "a member of Professional Picture Framers Association shall maintain a dignity of manner and behavior in the presentation of services and in ALL [emphasis is mine] other forms of professional conduct." If the PPFA is to be successful in living up to the professional image that it attempts to project, it must fastidiously observe its own rules. If the rules of common decency are to be observed the offenders must apologize first to Mr. Carberry, second to the PPFA, and third to the PPFA membership at large for having behaved unprofessionally contrary to the PPFA Code of Ethics. The PPFA needs to apologize to Mr. Carberry.
I have degrees in engineering, curatorial sciences, and fine arts, and hold a doctorate in organic chemistry, as does Mr. Carberry if my understanding is accurate. I am accustomed to speaking in "technicalese" to technically oriented people at a technical level that is usually not employed by lay persons. I confess I often have been guilty of speaking in technical language forgetting that I may not always have been understood by my listeners. I do not mean to do it, it is just a habit from many years of routinely communicating within my peer group. Yet Mr. Carberry presents highly technical and complex information accurately and in plain language in a style that the laity can understand. Not only are his responses accurate and uncolored by superfluous jargon but his style of writing makes for enjoyable reading. Many picture framers and conservators alike have benefited from his contributions.
Some time ago I had the occasion to inspect some framed art and pleasantly discovered that the framing workmanship and conservation technique used was stunningly superb. It was far superior to what anyone in that organization would have ever taken the time to do, was certainly far superior to any work the organization had ever contracted out, and was not the quality that I expected. It was one of the technically best pieces that I had seen in a long time. The sticker on the back read "Orton T. Carberry, CPF" who proved to be the same Orton Carberry whose forum responses I had been reading. Since that time I have had occasions to inspected more of Mr. Carberry's works and again found them to be consistently superb.
Too often framers are told to follow proper conservation framing procedure only to observe that in practice proper procedure is compromised and rationalized. I saw it happen frequently in my institutional work and I would guess that most framing shops see it happen every day. In an industry that says it wants to encourage conservation framing but seems to be more preoccupied with the "bottom line" and with quantity instead of quality, you Mr. Carberry, are to be commended for practicing what is preached. Good sir, you are an asset to the art and framing industry.
Two years ago at one of his lectures Mr. Carberry presented arguments vigorously supporting the PPFA which resulted in some of our family joining the PPFA. He was a very strong and convincing advocate of the PPFA. Today he is not so strong an advocate of the PPFA and is revisiting a separate picture framers association for Canadian framers, the Canadian Picture Framers Guild. Forum traffic is suggestive that there are others who may be thinking along parallel lines.
I have followed the Code of Ethics incident from its beginning and after listening to the current CPFG-PPFA discourse I cannot help but support Mr. Carberry's position. I take this one step further and suggest that the PPFA has breached membership trust by ignoring its own standards. There is no allowable latitude or gray area for mis-interpretation here. Either the PPFA is professional or it is not. Either the PPFA means what it says or it does not. There is no room for shilly-shallying about!
The PPFA rules state that members will conduct "all" forms of their conduct with dignity. The behavior exhibited by the offenders was less than dignified. The PPFA's ignoring of the matter is certainly less than dignified and is ethically wrong. Mr. Carberry paid his membership fee in good faith but has the PPFA acted in good faith? Is the PPFA truly sincere about its intentions or is it a scandal?
We support Mr. Carberry's quest to maintain sound ethics. Until this matter is satisfactorily addressed by the PPFA, PPFA membership will not be considered by any of our sites. At present the PPFA does not have our confidence. It is our opinion that the PPFA breached our membership trust and left an injustice unresolved. We support Mr. Carberry's petition requesting that the PPFA adhere to its own rules. I ask the PPFA where its morals are. Why does the PPFA have to be asked to apply its own mandate?
I fail to understand the logic of alienating contributors of goodwill and technical expertise. Is it pride? Is it being afraid to say "We are sorry, we made a mistake?" Is it because Mr. Carberry is not among an elite Establishment within the PPFA? If the answer is yes, I see no hope for the PPFA, because that attitude creates factions. Factions within associations demoralize and will result in the attrition of valued people. If the answer is "No, we are not afraid to acknowledge that we made a mistake" the PPFA must quickly act in good faith, publicly redress its breach of trust, and say "We are sorry, we made a mistake, it will not happen again." If the PPFA truly values its membership and is sincere in its mission statement it must make the first move toward reconciliation and it must move without delay. To again fail to act will only confirm that the PPFA does not intend to act in the best interests of all of its members.
The real subject for consideration in this discussion goes beyond suggestion of issue over hurt feelings and personal sensitivities. This is not an issue about Mr. Carberry. His role was only to have brought the matter into daylight. It is not even a question of unprofessional behavior by delinquent members (their behavior is still open to address by the PPFA under its Code of Ethics.) The real issue goes far beyond.
This should be regarded as being a very serious matter because it is about a breach in the fundamental operating philosophy of the PPFA. The fundamental issue is willful neglect by the governing body, the PPFA. It is an issue of corporate unwillingness to practice what it preaches. It is about corporate mores and ethics and corporate reluctance to provide for the welfare of all its members as stated in its own Statement of Mission.
Over the years the PPFA has put forth much effort striving to raise its esteem in the eyes of potential members and of the market place. If the PPFA continues to ignore this matter in the hopes that it will simply go away history shows that the PPFA will likely be the author of its own loss of integrity. Doubtlessly members will continue to lose faith in the PPFA because the PPFA will have amply demonstrated that ordinary members are subject to different rules than a few special members who are allowed to operate outside of the association's rules. Fractionation, a divided house, and consequent decline in member support will surely result. Those who in the past, and in the present, worked hard toward establishing the PPFA's credibility will have been betrayed.
Marketers teach that consumers measure an industry's attractiveness by looking at that industry's integrity. A measure of an industry's integrity is its ethics. The PPFA needs to look within its own walls to re-assess its internal ethics track record. It is time for the PPFA to remove the blinders.
This breaching of fundamentals may be a clear indicator of what PPFA members may expect in the future. Who will be next? New framers? Left-handed framers? Framers who wear glasses? Framers who operate out of their homes?
The PPFA preaches that reference to "home-based" framers is offensive but what positive steps has the PPFA taken beyond mumbling a few comforting words and coining a few alternative phrases to replace the term "home-based?" What has the PPFA actually done to help these members? Has the PPFA helped home-based members re-establish supplier connections? The answer seems to be "no." Should home-based framers re-assess their role within the PPFA because the PPFA also may not be sincere in protecting home-based member interests? Until the PPFA puts its own house in order is there reason why anyone should believe what the PPFA says?
All members of the PPFA are supposed to be treated with dignity and respect. The PPFA declares that this must be. To date the PPFA has failed Mr. Carberry and every other member who believed that the PPFA was sincere in maintaining dignified professional conduct. The onus to mend fences is heavily in the PPFA's court. The PPFA's integrity is very much at stake.
Mr. Carberry I thank you for having the intestinal fortitude to hold the PPFA accountable. Thank you for being patient with the PPFA. In doing so you have revealed a fundamental but repairable weakness in the PPFA's structure. The PPFA has been fairly warned that failure to implement just redress will inevitably result in continued erosion of morale. If the PPFA continues to insist on excusing its own breach of its own rules, it will end up being just another lame duck.
Under those circumstances I would support an alternative framers' association not only for Canada but also for the U.S.
Yours sincerely
Arno Jan Riise, B.Th., PEng., M.F.A., PhD.
[This message has been edited by Arno Jan Riise (edited November 03, 2000).]
