K
kolinsky
Guest
What was the answer to Barbara's question on this controversy of using foamboard?
Kolinsky
Kolinsky
Hi Kolinsky
Foamboard under any name cannot be coinsidered a true CP material because of its potential for venting of harmful gases, either residual from the manufacturing process or from the breaking down of the polystyrene itself.
It is recommended by many conservators that fine art not be mounted dirtectly onto fb.
The jury is out on whether it is a good idea to use it as filler.
You can find more detail including some recent discussion in the TOF.
Orton
[This message has been edited by Orton (edited 03-21-2000).]
Foamboard under any name cannot be coinsidered a true CP material because of its potential for venting of harmful gases, either residual from the manufacturing process or from the breaking down of the polystyrene itself.
It is recommended by many conservators that fine art not be mounted dirtectly onto fb.
The jury is out on whether it is a good idea to use it as filler.
You can find more detail including some recent discussion in the TOF.
Orton
[This message has been edited by Orton (edited 03-21-2000).]
K
kolinsky
Guest
Orton,
Thanks for the reply. So the recommended is to request museum mount board or 100 percent cotton rag mount board or use rag mats for mounting?
Kolinsky
Thanks for the reply. So the recommended is to request museum mount board or 100 percent cotton rag mount board or use rag mats for mounting?
Kolinsky
B
Bones
Guest
YO! Would have to agree with Orton as far as FINE ART! and the use of foam board, this brings me to a topic of intrest as far as the Baimbridge ART CARE foam board. Does the Microchamber Technology really work to stop pollutant gases as they claim in their ads? If not then why cover foamboard with it? If it does then wouldnt it be safe as the art care layer would trap the gasses given off by the core? Or is this false advertising? Or it hasnt been proven over time? Are the controlled laboratory tests where they bombarded the boards with a common pollutant gas and saw hardly any evidence of deteriation to the works enclosed with the matboards a hoax? Are their matboards with the technology superior over other rag boards as the other rag mats dont have this technology because Baimbridge holds the patent? Inquiring minds want to know!
Hi Bones,
Foamboard is an unacceptable substrait for C/P framing because it is too rigid and does not give with the artwork. So no matter what it is covered with it is not appropriate for C/P framing.
AL
------------------
Timberwoman
AL
I cut the mat, I pet the cat.
Foamboard is an unacceptable substrait for C/P framing because it is too rigid and does not give with the artwork. So no matter what it is covered with it is not appropriate for C/P framing.
AL
------------------
Timberwoman
AL
I cut the mat, I pet the cat.
AL please go to TOF concerning this post.
BUDDY
BUDDY
Hi Bones
It is my understanding that the ArtCare technology is designed to address airborne acids, and that it, indeed, does so. The zeolite technology has been around long before N&B brought it out under their trade-name of ArtCare: I believe that they are a licensed user.
The issue with fb is the venting of gases into the frame package that may not necessarily be adequately addressed by the ArtCare agents.
Like any discussion concerning fine art and CP framing techniques, CP considerations must be held in the context of degree.
It is my understanding that the ArtCare technology is designed to address airborne acids, and that it, indeed, does so. The zeolite technology has been around long before N&B brought it out under their trade-name of ArtCare: I believe that they are a licensed user.
The issue with fb is the venting of gases into the frame package that may not necessarily be adequately addressed by the ArtCare agents.
Like any discussion concerning fine art and CP framing techniques, CP considerations must be held in the context of degree.
J
James Miller
Guest
Artlady:
Foam-center board is too rigid? That's the first time I've heard that. What's the problem with rigidity? It seems all mount boards would have some rigidity, but that doesn't necessarily equate to their coefficients of expansion.
Why would the mount board/ backers need to "move" with the art, anyway? If it is properly hinged or otherwise properly mounted, it is free to expand and contract without restriction, no matter how rigid or stable the mount board.
ArtCare was a "major" topic of discussion on another list some weeks ago. There, two conservators responded that independent labs' ArtCare tests (paid for by Bainbridge) seemed valid and that they both recommend the products for most Archival/Conservation/Museum/Preservation(ACMP) framing. Tests are still underway, and results are dribbling out of the labs. Aboput the only thing certain, so far, is that the high zeolite content (clay) does *not* add to the abrasive quality of the boards. Tests have shown conclusively that ArtCare boards are no more abrasive than common alternatives.
Bainbridge says that the zeolites are not only effective filters of migrating contaminants, but that they also, in many cases, cause chemical breakdown of contaminants. That is, the bad chemicals are converted into inert ones. This contributes to their claim that the zeolites' capacity could not (in several lifetimes) "fill up".
Bainbridge was quick to point out that their ArtCare boards, now considered to be the best for ACMP framing, are not a cure-all. Calcium carbonate buffers, UV filtering glazing and other preservative precautions should still be taken, as always.
------------------
James Miller,PPFA-CPF; PPFA Certification Board Member; FACTS/GAFP Committee Member
Foam-center board is too rigid? That's the first time I've heard that. What's the problem with rigidity? It seems all mount boards would have some rigidity, but that doesn't necessarily equate to their coefficients of expansion.
Why would the mount board/ backers need to "move" with the art, anyway? If it is properly hinged or otherwise properly mounted, it is free to expand and contract without restriction, no matter how rigid or stable the mount board.
ArtCare was a "major" topic of discussion on another list some weeks ago. There, two conservators responded that independent labs' ArtCare tests (paid for by Bainbridge) seemed valid and that they both recommend the products for most Archival/Conservation/Museum/Preservation(ACMP) framing. Tests are still underway, and results are dribbling out of the labs. Aboput the only thing certain, so far, is that the high zeolite content (clay) does *not* add to the abrasive quality of the boards. Tests have shown conclusively that ArtCare boards are no more abrasive than common alternatives.
Bainbridge says that the zeolites are not only effective filters of migrating contaminants, but that they also, in many cases, cause chemical breakdown of contaminants. That is, the bad chemicals are converted into inert ones. This contributes to their claim that the zeolites' capacity could not (in several lifetimes) "fill up".
Bainbridge was quick to point out that their ArtCare boards, now considered to be the best for ACMP framing, are not a cure-all. Calcium carbonate buffers, UV filtering glazing and other preservative precautions should still be taken, as always.
------------------
James Miller,PPFA-CPF; PPFA Certification Board Member; FACTS/GAFP Committee Member
B
Bones
Guest
Acually I was being a little precocious with my last post, asking all the questions about artcare and no I dont use the foamboard in archival pkgs. Have the literature from WAAC about the zeolite info and understand it. Orton thank you for your post, I learn a great deal from you and you are most hospitable in your replies and I thank you, James I dont understsand the rigidity reply from art lady either! Thank you both for sharing with me about the art care topic it is a pleasure, as I always am learning from the responses here you both seem to be great moderators and gentlemen.Again thanx! Bro. Bones.