The PPFA, Certification and Education

[FramerDave]

Agree completely. Have you ever taken any of my classes? I am the champion of the "we are over-conserving ourselves out of jobs" mantra.



BUT - It is not a secret that Pat disagrees with the newly published PPFA Guidelines for Framing Needlework and Textiles and is unhappy with their positioning of "tagging" in the hierarchy of framing "levels." Why should the PPFA provide a venue/teaching platform to someone who is openly hostile and critical of the "standards" established by a jury of her peers?



I didn't write the Guidelines and had NOTHING to do with the committee that did.



As an educator for the PPFA, when teaching, PAT (or any educator) would have to embrace "what the guidelines say" and would also have to teach "what the guidelines say" so that those who want to pass the CPF and MCPF exams (offered by the PPFA) could do so.

I’m starting a new thread for this because the other one has become a hopeless train wreck, and Rob mentions something I’ve been thinking a lot about over the last few days.

I think we all need to keep a realistic view of what the PPFA does and does not do, mainly in regards with guidelines, certification and education.

When we wrote the various guidelines (paper, canvas, textiles/needlework) we did not set out to “approve” or “disapprove” of any method, product or material used in framing. We took great pains to present an objective description of the process, a brief explanation of how the process is done, and then its advantages and disadvantages. Only in a few extreme cases (such as spray mounting) did we flat-out state that a process is not suitable for preservation framing.

We did not say a framer could or could not use a process, method or material. We did not approve, disapprove, allow or prohibit anything. They are guidelines, not laws. I seriously doubt if anyone would want to the PPFA to be a regulatory agency.

When the Guidelines Task Force did its work, we asked very knowledgeable and respected framers with strong backgrounds to review our work. We asked conservators to review our work. We researched information from the CCI, AIC, Library of Congress, FACTS and other sources. It was not just a handful of framers sitting around handing down pronouncements from Mt. Olympus stating “This is how you are to do it.” It is a tool to give a framer the knowledge he or she needs to learn how to do things and make an informed decision as to its suitability.

The Guidelines series gives the Certification board a framework for the CPF and MCPF programs. For the CPF all of the questions are based on the latest editions of the guidelines and other books identified as being useful and containing sounds practices. Although the CPF exam is heavy on preservation, it is not exclusively so. As an example, Chris Paschke’s book on mounting and laminating is used as a basis for questions about, obviously, dry mounting and laminating. Although not a preservation mounting method it is something framers need to know how to do, and how to do well. It does not mean a CPF may never be allowed to dry mount again, it means she has demonstrated that she possesses the knowledge needed to do it successfully and know when it is and is not appropriate.

The MCPF exam is pretty much exclusively preservation standard; framers are expected to demonstrate they possess the knowledge and skills to carry out framing which will preserve and protect the artwork as long and as well as possible. When the exam is scored, it is done against a score sheet which conforms strictly to the guidelines for best preservation practices. The score sheet is as objective as possible and is made in adherence to guidelines only. If a candidate does something falling short of those standards, we really don’t care if “I’ve always done it that way” or “I read about it in an article.” Just the guidelines.

So does this mean a CPF or MCPF is a perfect framer who will never ever mess something up or do something wrong? No. Does this mean that a CPF or MCPF is never again allowed to use silicone to mount an object? No, but he should at least know where it ranks in terms of preservation, and would never try to pull the old “But it peels right off” line. Does it mean that a CPF or MCPF who spray mounts a cross stitch will have the certification taken away or be punished? No. Again, the PPFA is not a regulatory agency, does not have to the resources to be one, and again I doubt if anyone would want the PPFA to have regulatory powers.

Finally the issue of education. I would hope that all PPFA educators try to reinforce the work of the rest of the PPFA and send a consistent message. So does this mean that no PPFA educator is allowed to mention dry mounting because it does not meet the highest preservation standards? No! Again, it is not the place of the PPFA to “approve” of any method.

Just as an example let’s take a hypothetical class taught by Chris Paschke. I’m not picking on her, but I just want to try to use an example that takes us away from some of the more controversial issues and personalities. So Chris teaches a class on basic dry mounting and laminating methods. She’ll teach about TTMP, porous vs. non-porous tissues, etc. So does the PPFA say she’s not allowed to teach that class under the aegis of the PPFA? No again! I would assume though that she would point out that permanent mounting methods run counter to preservation objectives.

And in the interest of disclosure, Paul, I am currently a PPFA board member, member of the Certification Board and the Guidelines Task Force.

 

[Rob Markoff]

Dave - why are you picking on Chris Paschke? Her Mounting and Laminating Handbook is considered by many to the the Bible of the industry on the topic. She has tirelessly given her time to the Association and worked hard to make the judging of the annual Framing Competition a fair and balanced practice. She has done nothing to harm you. You owe her an apology. I will do everything in my power to see that you never teach again.

On an more serious note:

I would hope that all PPFA educators try to reinforce the work of the rest of the PPFA and send a consistent message. So does this mean that no PPFA educator is allowed to mention dry mounting because it does not meet the highest preservation standards? No! Again, it is not the place of the PPFA to “approve” of any method.

No, but it should mean that no educator would say that dry mounting does meet the standard - or that they do not agree with the standard in a PPFA classroom environment. Just the facts, ma'am.

Consequently, no matter WHAT Pat thinks, if she (or anyone) were sitting for the MCPF exam, and were to use nylon tags in a "maximum preservation" environment, would she have points deducted because that process does not meet the current "highest" standard?

 

[neilframer]

Excellent information, although our customers mostly don't really care about the PPFA or the CPF or the MCPF.
They just want what they want.
As a 43 year framer I try to take from the best info available and provide the best quality framing based on the artwork being framed, the choices and prices being offered, and the final product expected.
In the "every day real world" we have to weigh all of these things while trying to educate the customer who may or may not think that they are being "played" only for profit.

 

[Paul Cascio]

Thanks Dave, for the information. FWIW, I think the PPFA made a good choice in appointing you to the position.

 

[FramerDave]

No, but it should mean that no educator would say that dry mounting does meet the standard - or that they do not agree with the standard in a PPFA classroom environment. Just the facts, ma'am.

Absolutely. Let’s take foam centered board as another example. I’ve heard some framers say “Well Mr. X said it was safe for preservation framing in his class.” I would hope that any PPFA educator would realize that things are more nuanced than a yes or no decision, and that there are many degrees of preservation framing.

Here’s how I* would answer that question:

“Realistically, for 99% of the framing we’re likely to see on a daily basis, it’s perfectly fine. However, among conservators there is still some concern over the products used to expand the foam and the foam center’s long-term chemical stability.

“For best preservation I’d take a look at something like Coroplast. It’s lightweight, non-hygroscopic, etc. On the downside…

“There’s also 8-ply matboard… It has the disadvantages…

“In short, foam boards are fine for most everyday framing, but for best preservation (and if you take the MCPF exam) look at other boards.”

*I’m not quite arrogant enough to hold myself up as the paragon of education. However, I am well qualified to speak for myself, therefore I use myself as an example.

 

[Rob Markoff]

I’m not quite arrogant enough to hold myself up as the paragon of education.

Of course not Dave, that moniker is reserved for me

 

[wvframer]

It may be a mistake to assume that customers don't care about PPFA, CPF or MCPF. This is particularly true of younger customers who begin any purchase with an internet search, these days often from their phone. If they want to, customers can know an awful lot about us and what we do before they ever enter our store.

I think there is a dynamic tension between preservation and cost. I want to know as much as possible about both. I use a wide array of materials and techniques, but like to know I am ready for those rare pieces of art that are more valuable than my house, shop and vehicles combined.

 

[Grey Owl]

It may be a mistake to assume that customers don't care about PPFA, CPF or MCPF. This is particularly true of younger customers who begin any purchase with an internet search, these days often from their phone. If they want to, customers can know an awful lot about us and what we do before they ever enter our store.

I think there is a dynamic tension between preservation and cost. I want to know as much as possible about both. I use a wide array of materials and techniques, but like to know I am ready for those rare pieces of art that are more valuable than my house, shop and vehicles combined.

My customers may not care specifically about PPFA, CPF, or MCPF, but I believe most care that training and guidelines (implied standards) are available, and that I take additional training so I am better prepared to properly care for their artwork. And being a member of PPFA or/and having CPF or MCPF adds credence to being a true framing professional.

And through my client discussions we can jointly determine what is best. For example one of my artist clients buys frames elsewhere for her own artwork and has me cheaply put in points, dust cover and wire, lower end preservation. For her own collection, through, all gold frames, foam on lips if acrylic or oil, line rabbets, etc., museum glass on prints and charcoal, but not yet glass on acrylics or oils., but still higher end preservation. I believe being a member of PPFA helps her know we can properly discuss these options.

And saying I have taken several classes with Hugh Phibbs through PPFA, once she found out who Hugh was, is worth lots.