Question matting watercolor

Create a Post
M

mayos

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
673
Loc
Clay Center, KS.
I may be showing my ignorance, but I've not encounted this before and want to do it right.

A customer brought in a watercolor, on a strainer bar, and wants a new frame with a 3" mat around it. I'm not sure how to work this. I don't know if I can just get another 3" strainer bar to put around the existing one and use it like I was stacking a frame. Or if I need to remove the existing strainer bar and re-stretch the print (assuming I have enough canvas). I'd appreciate any suggestions anyone might have. Thanks for your help.
 
A watercolor on a strainer bar?
Do you mean acrylic?
A canvas transfer?
A watercolor reproduction printed on canvas?
I find it highly unlikely that it is a stretched watercolor.

That said, it is obviously stretched on bars. Then the question is are you putting it under glass? If not, I question further the "watercolor" acsersion.

If you are putting it under glazing, any form of sink mount would work under the glass. If you are NOT putting it under glazing, I would not recommend a mat, but a wrapped liner of some ilk, which you would assemble as you would a stacked frame.
 
I have had some discussions recently of watercolour artists painting 'watercolour' on canvas. (personally, as a watercolour artist, I don't understand why they would do this when the artist can easily use watercolour techniques with acrylic paints and get a watercolour look and frame without glass......oy, don't get me started). Hopefully it's a passing phase....must have been something lately in one of the artist magazines

That being said, if this is the case, then continue treating it like a watercolour USE GLASS or its ruined.
 
It's possible it's not a watercolor, I haven't actually seen it yet (I've seen a picture of it). The customer said it was a watercolor. I do know it has been stretched and the customer is very adamant that he wants it matted. It has no mat or liner at the present. When I talked to him, I questioned him about it being a watercolor and was told it was, and it was on canvas. I'll find out for sure tomorrow when he brings it in.
 
My customer was just here. Yep, it's a watercolor on a 1 1/2 stainer bar. He's very insistent that it be matted with a 3" mat and a new frame, no glass.

The watercolor on canvas has a very different look. It doesn't appear to be a traditional canvas. He said this is something his neighbor in Colorado does and seems to make a living doing it. It's probably not something I'd appreciate, but it's different.
 
I'd probably stack foamcore and cut a sink mat. You'd need either a deep frame or frame extender. If you've explained the pitfalls of using a mat with no glass and the customer still wants it that way. Finish it off, leave your sticker on the roll, and swipe the CC.
 
You can still use a liner and glass. Don't let the customer (or more likely, the artist, who told the customer how it should be framed) dictate proper framing to you, though. If you can flick water on it and make the colors run, it should have glazing.
 
Definately fabric liner with glass. Matboard looks like carp in a minute with no glass. Also the watercolor will deteriorate from being exposed to the environment.

Tell him he can pay you to replace the mat every couple of months for the rest of his life or use the liner now. Also let him know that such a lovely piece of art should certainly become valuable one day and without glass it will become worthless.

One thing I have done a couple times this month is give the customer the opportunity to upgrade to Museum glass for only my cost on the sheet of glass. I let them do it for the price of a 32x40. I have sold the same sheet of glass 3 times at $75 each time and I still have a 10x20 scrap. This is added to the cost of the regular glass.

I bet I would sell some more Museum glass if Tru Vue would send me a display. I've been waiting a long time for it and I know they are reading this.
 
ummm Jeff, use that leftover scrap of MG and make your own display. It'll look much nicer than what TV sends to you.
 
PaulSF said:
ummm Jeff, use that leftover scrap of MG and make your own display. It'll look much nicer than what TV sends to you.
Click to expand...

I know paul but it is the principle of the whole thing. I still feel the product is way over priced and the economy is going to put a serious hurting on Tru Vue. Even the crack dealers give out the first one free.

I will give Tru Vue credit for the improved quality though. I don't even have a pair of the stinking gloves for the stuff. I did learn that the cheap plastic food service gloves work beatifully to handle the stuff. I had a customer that I was doing a job for that needed the framed piece a few minutes after the glass was delivered and since we bought the restaurant next door I thought I'd give those things a try. They don't make any kind of mark on the glass no matter how I handle it.
 
I have also framed a watercolour that was coated with a finish so that the colours would not run and no glass would be needed. (This 'protection' was done by the artist. In my opinion, anything added to the surface of a watercolour would reduce the value of it.

Artists.....got to love them!
 
TV Display

got mine last week, don't like the frame, plain ole black
 
There is a new (a year or so old) product on the market called Watercolor Canvas. When watercolors are applied to it, they become relatively permanent. They look very nice. But I would not frame one without glass. And certainly not with mats and no glass.

But the painted canvas does give a very nice look...
 
I had a large watercolor (45x27) last year for reframing. It dated from 1897 and to my suprise the paper was mounted on canvas and stretcher bars. The frame was relatively modern, but the mat looked
original. I suspect that the paper was mounted before the picture was painted. This technigue seems to have been very effective. Amazingly,
there was no foxing or other defects. No tears, spilts and not a trace of acid burn, despite the highly acidic mat.(Not to mention the wooden bars). No fading either. The painting was rather crudely wedged behind the mat with wooden blocks.

When I reframed it I opted for a wooden liner to replace the mat. (Suitably sealed and lined with ragboard). Part of the reason I chose a liner is that it reduced the glass size to exactly 48", which saved me buying the minimum two sheets of 60" Museum glass. Also it allowed me to use a heavier frame. The finished effect was quite dramatic. It looked as though it had been painted the day before.

I think this goes to prove that if an artist pays attention to the 'craft' as well as the 'art', it pays dividends in the future.

loststag.jpg
 
mayos said:
My customer was just here. Yep, it's a watercolor on a 1 1/2 stainer bar. He's very insistent that it be matted with a 3" mat and a new frame, no glass.

The watercolor on canvas has a very different look. It doesn't appear to be a traditional canvas. He said this is something his neighbor in Colorado does and seems to make a living doing it. It's probably not something I'd appreciate, but it's different.
Click to expand...
Very well could be a watercolor on canvas. New(ish) product out there....Watercolor canvas. Sound goofy to me!"Hey let`s put the most fragile medium on stretchers,so they`re honkin hard to protect!" :nuts: L.
 
rhop said:
got mine last week, don't like the frame, plain ole black
Click to expand...

The first thing I did with all the TV displays is replace the frame with one that I sell!

Seriously, it makes no sense to hang something you don't sell! Put a stacked frame on it even and let it do double duty!
 
Watercolor canvas was developed for the exact reason to get away from need to use glass, especially on large pieces. I have personally tried the product myself, but did not care for it.

"Got to love Artisits" ?

I would say the development of this product is partially due in direct response to the galleries. There is a tremendous bias against any glazed art in many of the larger galleries, to the point where some will not even consider any art with glass...even museum glass.

Don't get me started on how oil painting is the be all and end all of painting, and watercolor is the "poor step sister"! :mad:

To get back on point...I would imagine the watercolor may be sprayed with an acrylic fix. So water proofness is probably not an issue.
 
I have done and am doing a lot of paintings/pastels/pencil drawings myself.
I recently started acrylics on watercolor paper in smaller sizes (so I can put a mat and glazing on it). I had never heard of watercolor on canvas, so this thread is very interesting.

Is it the same kind of canvas you use for oils or acrylics? Does it look the same I mean. And why would anyone use it, does it have any special advantages?
 
Hmmmmm.... It may be possible to 'seal' an unglazed watercolor to protect it from atmospheric dirt, coffee splashes etc. If it ever suffered physical damage it would be difficult/immpossible to repair depending on the technique used. An oil painting can take severe damage and still be restored. A delicate watercolor only needs a slight nick to ruin it. Without glass, this is going to happen sooner or later.
 
As has been said, a fabric mat or liner make aesthetic sense and glazing is required.
The client must understand that exposed paint will be affected by particulate, aerosol, and chemical pollution, unless it is protecte by a varnish or glazing sheet and the latter is the safe alternative for the framer.



Hugh
 
Ylva said:
Is it the same kind of canvas you use for oils or acrylics? Does it look the same I mean. And why would anyone use it, does it have any special advantages?
Click to expand...

I have not seen this product, but if it is what I think it is - watercolor paper mounted onto canvas and stretchers, it would be good for large works. I do a few paintings in gouache and always premount paper using two layers of board. This gives a flat, stable surface that resists curling when you wet the paper. The max size I have used is about 36x24" and at this size it is hard to keep the board completely flat. Bigger than this, mounting onto canvas and stretcher bars would ensure the work kept forever flat and would be easier to paint on.

Still need glass though.:icon11:
 
I've been getting multiple displays from Tru-Vue and refusing shipment so that they go back!

I agree with all that has been said about using glazing on this work. Even if there is some coating over the painting the risk of physical damage and the use of a mat would dictate glazing. A UV coated glazing would also serve to reduce color fading which would inevitably happen unless the artist used all light fast colors which is doubtful. Generally the pigments used in some watercolor palettes tend to be more fugitive in nature than some other mediums.
 
If it is the Fredrix product it is not paper on canvas.

It is 100% cotton artist canvas with a specially formulated gesso designed for all water-based paints. It has lifting ability for easy washes and corrections. It requires spraying with an acrylic fix afterwards for use without glass.
 
evartpat said:
...There is a tremendous bias against any glazed art in many of the larger galleries, to the point where some will not even consider any art with glass...even museum glass.
Click to expand...

In my limited experience, money is not the issue. The issue has been described as "visual value", on the theory that nothing should come between the art and the viewer's eyes.

By the same reasoning, we should enjoy the visual beauty of nature through our windows at home unencumbered by glass. Consider why your home's windows are equipped with glass.

The "visual value" of art unprotected by glazing will steadily diminish from its initial beauty to eventually become dull and ugly -- unless it is immediately dashed by accident. Even if the owner manages to keep a painting free of mechanical damage, such as abrasion or puncture from routine handling and housekeeping, there would be no protection from environmental changes that stress the fibers of all things hygroscopic, and no protection from the ravages of light. And then there's the issue of soiling. There is no way to avoid the deposits of airborne contaminants and soil on unglazed art, so a para-conservation industry has been developed for the purpose of cleaning, repairing, and refinishing paintings that have been damaged by soiling. At best, cleaning and re-varnishing an oil painting is an invasive and risky process, but how do you clean a watercolor?

All of that detriment is easily avoided by the glazing they disdain. What's wrong with this picture?

The art experts, who are generally gallery managers and often the artists themselves, choose to ignore the intrinsic value of the artworks they claim to appreciate. Their primary interest is monetary, so their concern for the art is only momentary. Regardless of price, they do not care how long the art lasts after it is sold, even though they may promote it as an investment to trusting, but unwary, collectors. The arrogant disregard of these 'experts' for the safety and longevity of the art they create or sell, and for their customers' investment, amounts to shameful irresponsibility.

Buyers, please beware.

Of course the framer's job is to provide the goods and services customers require, so the glazing decision rests with them. But please, let's respect our customers enough to recommend proper framing with glazing, and help them make the decision based on information, not ignorance. After all, they will not know unless we tell them.
 
Among misleading phrases that pollute English, calling exposure of vulnerable works on paper to the hazards of unglazed display a recognition of "visual value" may be the most misleading. When paintings are displayed in museums, the most valuable are the ones one will see behind glazing, exactly because they are so valuable.



Hugh
 
One point that should be raised....

The term 'watercolor' covers a wide area. One tends to think of delicate washes on paper, but technically an painting done on a canvas with thick acrylics (which may be visually indistinquishable from oils) is a watercolor. In between there area host of techniques: Gouche, tempera or combinations (so-called 'mixed media). Whether or not to glaze is best assessed for individual works on the basis of their vunerabilty to damage and ease of restoration.

Certain techniques of painting are enhanced by glass, just as varnishing an oil can even out flat areas and intensify colors as well as providing protection.
 
What would be the pitfalls of taking the canvas off the stretcher bars and mounting the canvas to a foamcore backing? I was considering using a very, very light coat of Mathesive 101.
 
Unstretching anything opens up bad possibilities, when its original tension is lost and over all adhesion is risky, at best.


Hugh
 
prospero said:
Whether or not to glaze is best assessed for individual works on the basis of their vunerabilty to damage and ease of restoration.
Click to expand...

Yes, some artworks are more vulnerable than others to environmental changes and expansion/contraction stresses, mechanical damage, and light damage. But unglazed works of all kinds are equally vulnerable to soiling.

Environmental hazards are universally harmful to all framed artworks, regardless of the medium, and regardless of their degree of vulnerability.

Restoration is always an invasive and risky process, even when it only involves routine cleaning and revarnishing an oil painting on canvas. Acrylic paintings are more difficult to clean than oil paintings, but in all cases, "ease of restoration" is unpredictable. For instance, a painting may suffer nothing more than accumulated soil during a half-century. Or, one careless moment could result in catastrophic destruction. Restoration may be impossible, or perhaps immensely difficult and costly.

For all framed artworks, prevention of damage by glazing is far better than trying to assess vulnerability or predict ease of restoration. When it's gone, it's gone.

The core of the argument against glazing is that the temporary beauty of naked artwork trumps all of the long term benefits of framing with glass or acrylic. Before we had the benefit of optical coatings, which make the glazing almost invisible, that argument might have had some merit. Today, not so much.
 
Wise words Jim.

I once (in my early days) tried cleaning an acrylic painting. Prob was, I thought it was an oil. I realised this when I attempted a light wipe with turps and it went cloudy.:icon11: I tried all sorts of things to bring it back - without success. In desperation I tried the stuff use use to clean the plastic bits on cars. Worked a treat.:thumbsup: And it has lasted, as the customer never came to collect it and it is hanging on my wall as a object lesson in "a little learning is a dangerous thing".

I put glass on it btw.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top