I have been pulled into this discussion on HH and thought I would post some more of it here. You all were so instramental in saving FACTS. The argument has come down to FACTS or PPFA and I say both can work togethger, FACTS can be usd by the PPFA.
Nona
FACTS was conceived to protect art but its true value is in the practice of those concepts. At the Chicago meeting, it was determined that there are four advantages to the business of framing if framers use FACTS concepts.
1) To assist framers by providing consistent terminology and guidelines to properly do preservation framing.
2) To assist framers in the marketing of preservation framing by providing a standard to refer to, I frame to FACTS standards
3) To assist framers in protecting themselves from possible liability by operating within the generally accepted framing practices within the industry
4) To help grow the custom framing industry by adding credibility, confidence and education about preservation framing.
The industry has been plagued with terminology that is meaningless and very confusing. Before FACTS the Guild Guidelines had been written but there was basically no paper trail to say why they were correct, if in fact they were. The Recertification committee is and has been made up of a small group of dedicated people with limited resources in time and availability of research material. When I chaired the Consumer Guide to Conservation Framing Committee in the San Diego Chapter PPFA in the mid 80's in an attempt to clear up the terminology issue so we could talk to consumers clearly, there was very little information to base decisions on and most of it was not reliable because it came from manufactures literature or from a framer who had "heard". Don Pierce managed to put together FACTS and he walked the tightrope that was required to get the manufactures to put up the money for the work but not offend any of them and produced a wonderful tool that framers can use. All framers. It's not perfect, but a much better document and less biased, in my opinion, than the English document is. At the moment because so many framers supported FACTS, the manufactures are taking it seriously again. Could the PPFA committee duplicate the efforts? Probably but it would take so much work and effort and frankly money, that there is no way it will happen. The PPFA has too many other things it can be working on for framers like the business of framing, education, advertising, why duplicate what has been done so well. The PPFA and FACTS committees can do the work that is needed to clear up some of the areas that need work. I would love to see the FACTS web site much more user friendly. I would like a website where all framers can get up to date information about materials, techniques and terminology. I would like to see several things improved.
FACTS can be independent because it is not tied to any trade shows, is not dependant on advertising dollars and the manufacturers are limited to how much they can provide support and as long as framers are dedicated enough to their craft to care about standards and will pay their $30 a year, the manufacturers will stay supportive. The key is framers support. Without it we will not have independent factual documents and we will not have the support of the rest of the industry.
I've been quiet about FACTS this last year because I wanted to see where the board would take it. I have a proposal the board is considering right now to create a committee called Framers for FACTS. The committee's job will be to figure out how to improve FACTS, make it more useful for framers and to provide tools we can use at the sales counter. All of this is not in opposition to the PPFA it supports the PPFA, it has many PPFA people working on accomplishing this goal. Having a non dependant body to provide factual information about materials and the consequences of techniques is crucial to framers.
You may not trust me because I'm a paid Nielsen Bainbridge consultant but a lot of people do because I have proven over and over to care about the industry, have for years and am not for sale. Ask anyone who knows me if I support the PPFA and how many hours through the years I have given to it with no return other than seeing the industry grow up and knowing I had a very small part of it.
The CPF and MCPF can use the material FACTS has developed to be the paper trail it needs because all of FACTS work is and will be based on clear paper trails. I want preservation framing to be defined for the retail framing world, not museums, not conservators, but that is my personal prejudice. The consensus will decide what it will be, not me or frankly you. It takes a consensus to make it work. FACTS can do that.
Nona Powers, CPF
Www.nonapowers.com
San Diego