Problem The wavy artwork dilemma

Create a Post
W.C.Framer

W.C.Framer

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Posts
5,784
Loc
Napa, Calif.
I have this watercolor artwork that just came back to the store for the third time now for the same complaint. The paper has become wavy and the client wants it laying flat. Well sure, valid issue, right?

The artwork: Japanese watercolor on heavier water color paper lined on the outside with 2-inches of fabric. If not new, its it great condition and sturdy. Was rolled in a tube.

The framing: No mat, fitted with wood frame, conservation clear glass, claycoat foamcore backing. The moulding, NC54108, has some depth to it to allow some creative engineering.

Simply fitting all the elements into the frame and closing didn't work. The fabric stayed flat, but the paper began to wave right about where it is joined to the fabric.

So next, I tried a variation of one of Jim's techniques, and added polyester batting behind the artwork and closed tightly. (Sorry Jim, didn't go for the full acrylic sandwich, think it would work here tho?)

Although it left the store much flatter, it has since started to ripple up again. There are no adhesives being used, just pressure fitting. Oh, if we could only drymount everything!

My thoughts last time included using a stiffer backboard, like gator or hardwood. Maybe some pine stringers behind to push it flat against the glass?

And then if we really were going to do this right, how can it be kept flat if its not touching the glass? Acrylic can be just as flexible.
 
I am sure there are others who can advise you better.
My first thought is... Humidity is changing in side the frame package...

Get the humidity down and flatten the work so it lays flat as you want it. Use coreplast behind a 4 ply rag or artcare to back it. Tape the edges of the glass to the core plast to seal the entire package before you put it in the frame. Then use Tyvek to seal the frame then your dust cover.

next.
 
The owner of this art needs to accept the fact that it is made of different items adhered together. It can not be forced to remain flat. It will have good days and bad days but never be what they hope it will be.
 
Jeff that is so true.

The cloth expands & contracts at a different rate than the paper does.
 
We all know that the customer will never accept this as fact. They will spend the rest of their days lamenting the purchase of this piece and make a poor framer insane in their quest for the impossible.
 
Today that thought crossed my mine too. All different materials each doing their own thing are going to be problems.

I also have no experience with other mounting tissues, and don't think this is the time to experiment!
 
Attempting to mount something like this can be fatal. To be sure it would work out you would need to cut away all extra materials so it is only the watercolor itself. There are times that the entire piece can be mounted with the border materials but the best bet for that would be wet mounting. It would be taking a big risk if you don't have a lot of experience with both wet mounting and wet mounting of similar items. Some things just aren't worth the risk.

I think that Rob's discussion of original works is just one more reason why the average person should never purchase original artwork. Sad to say that this is just one more nail in the coffin of the original artist in thier quest to sell to the public. I will ad my commentary to this in saying that the legal protections the artists have strived for have added to their demise. I personally believe that artists should include disclosures and warranties with every piece of work they sell. Any artist that did not disclose that their work will behave in a manner that is contrary to the public's expectations should be required to perform repairs and restorations to the artwork for life if they did not disclose the shortcomings of the the techniques and procedures used. Failing to do so would make a legal case for forced repurchase of the works by the artist.

Just my opinion and I bet a good lawyer could make the case in a court of law.
 
Jeff Rodier said:
We all know that the customer will never accept this as fact. They will spend the rest of their days lamenting the purchase of this piece and make a poor framer insane in their quest for the impossible.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, Jeff. They will spend the rest of their days wondering why this framer charged so much money to ruin a perfectly good watercolor that should lay flat.
 
Jeff Rodier said:
I will ad my commentary to this in saying that the legal protections the artists have strived for have added to their demise.
Click to expand...

Slight frankenthread ahead...

I see your point Jeff, wearing my "Artist's Hat"...but I wonder how much all the legal rigamarole around the intellectual rights of the artist was instigated by lawyers seeing an opportunity. As usual, it has become so convoluted and written in "legalese that only they can interperet the laws now...nothing new.

Just a bit of cynicism...carry on...:kaffeetrinker_2:
 
Yes Pat and we see that California is the stage where it all plays out. Who knows, maybe an election or two will return some sanity to the left coast. In the mean time I see a wave of lawsuits ensuing against artists that used sub standard materials, techniques and possibly a pattern of conduct that would allow them to profit from future litigation. If I were an attorney in California I could make a lot of money going after artists who have made enough money to make it worth my time and effort. Just sayin'.

Now back to the watercolor at hand. Has the customer been given an eplanation of the physics involved in multiple materials being fused together and the manner in which they react differently to the environment.
 
Jeff, I think you will get the "Can-O-Worms" award this year.

People creating "artwork" without testing the technology are the bane of the framer's existence. We are expected to be engineers, chemists, botanists, and aestheticians (just made that up, but I'll do spell check) after the fact.
On top of that we are also expected to do all the research and development for free. Where else does that happen?

Gumby was on the right path, but there are a few other details to making a "sealed package". Conditioning all the parts that go into the frame package, and including a desiccant will help. Using a Marvelseal envelope attached to the face of the glass will insure a true seal (Coroplast and Tyvek will help to slow down the process, but are not true vapor barriers and humidity variation is the culprit) and will provide a stable environment for the artwork.
 
Sorry Doug...one more comment, then I will stop...

I think you misunderstand me Jeff. I am not defending the artists use of substandard materials, not by a long shot! I am also not defending, what I consider, the way over the top protections by VARA...just my opinion here. I get so tired of so much litigation in everything!!

Now, you are right...back to the subject at hand.

I am afraid it will be like you or Paul SF says, it will be virtually impossible to convince the customer that some waviness is in the nature of the beast....<sigh>
 
Yes Wally, only a true collector of exceptional artwork would understand, appreciate and be willing to pay for such a treatment. The truly ironic piece is that a true collector of exceptional artwork would have the lowest expectations of the artwork remaining flat.
 
So, Artcare Restore already as Mona so quietly suggested in reply #1.
 
The problem with attempting something such as Artcare Restore is the high risk of creasing of the artwork in the process. Multiple pieces of materials bound together in such a manner as this piece almost always means they are not perfectly meshed together without variations that would cause creases when pressed.
 
I think dry mounting in any form should be ruled out. Restore is too fickle in my estimations..I've had too many failures that cost me a lot of time and money, and I was following published proceedure.
I think that treating the piece as a textile might work better. Stretch and lace, condition to environment, and use sealed frame technology to insure stability.
 
One would be forgiven for regarding paper as a very fragile and flimsy substance. In some circumstances it can be incredibly strong and capable of exerting huge forces.
I used to stretch watercolor paper on 3/4" blockboard panels. A 30" sheet of medium weight paper will 'grow' about 1/2" when saturated. If you tape this to a board and let it dry slowly, it will pull so tight that it actually bends the board. Not a lot, maybe 1/8". But it does bend it.

So if a piece of paper is in a frame and it decides to expand due to moisture absorption it is going to push hard. If it can't go out, it will ripple. I'm willing to bet that even if you sandwiched it between two concrete paving slabs it would push them apart.
 
W.C.Framer said:
...So next, I tried a variation of one of Jim's techniques, and added polyester batting behind the artwork and closed tightly. (Sorry Jim, didn't go for the full acrylic sandwich, think it would work here tho?)
Click to expand...

Variation, indeed. In all of your description, there is no mention of a glass spacer, and you seem to say that you have pressed the glass against the art. Assemblies of dissimilar materials, such as the papers and fabrics used in Asian artworks, are known to be intolerant of environmental changes. When exposed to temperature and humidity changes, those artworks can not be expected to remain flat.

Acrylic is the only glazing recommended for Direct Contact Overlay (DCO) mounting. The Grumble archives contain many references to the poor thermal properties and condensation hazard of using glass in DCO mounting, which is why DCO mounts should never be constructed using glass exposed to open air. If glass must be used in a DCO mount, then it is necessary to use a second layer of glazing, spaced above the overlay layer in order to insulate the overlay glass from ambient changes.

It is quite possible that, as others have described, this artwork might have cockled anyway, but direct contact with glass almost always causes that problem, even with excellent quality papers not assembled to other materials. At this point, the artwork may require conservation treatment to make it flat again, but once cockled, such an assembly may tend to cockle again.
 
Here is what I would do:
"I'm sorry, Mrs. Gotrocks, but I seem to be unable to satisfy you. Therefore, I am going to give you your artwork and your money back, and suggest you try Joe Badframer's shop in the next town. Perhaps he will be able to take care of this for you. Thank you for trying us first, and I wish you the best of luck. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

There are times to just cut your losses and move on....
 
The underlying issue is that original artwork is not a mass-produced product with rigid quality-control standards and predictable characteristics. Artists frequently use the materials and techniques that are handy when their inspiration strikes. Even the Mona Lisa is painted on a wood panel that has cracks and flaws. The only solution is to somehow educate the purchaser of an original work, so they their expectations are realistic. Art sellers would rarely assume this responsibility, since it may tend to make their merchandise sound "inferior" or "flawed" to the neophyte purchaser. So this responsibility frequently falls to the framer. We can go a long way toward avoiding returns based on unrealistic expectations if we incorporate some "nature of the beast" instruction into the design process. It's almost like the tag you find on a leather jacket explaining that inconsistencies are part of the natural appearance and should not be considered flaws. I frequently explain such things as heavily embroidered areas next to no embroidery pulls the fabric substrate in different directions; watercolors on lightweight paper distort the fiber structure of the paper, creating natural waves; unlike materials combined will expand and contract at different rates; etc. I say, "This will never be as flat as this tabletop, and you wouldn't want it to be. You have to think of the artwork as an object that has its own particular physical characteristics, and they are part of its unique appeal." Not everyone will be open-minded enough to accept these realities, and that's where you have to begin to make judgments as to whether you will be able to meet their expectations without causing problems for yourself.
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 
Rick Granick said:
The underlying issue is that original artwork is not a mass-produced product with rigid quality-control standards and predictable characteristics.
Click to expand...

I would say the underlying issue is direct contact with the glass. Even rigidly-controlled quality in mass production would not prevent hygroscopic (porous) artwork from cockling under glass in direct contact. Conversely, properly fitted and tightly closed framing, including air space under the glass, creates a microenvironment that would slow the rate of change and minimize cockling for art of any quality.

...We can go a long way toward avoiding returns based on unrealistic expectations if we incorporate some "nature of the beast" instruction into the design process.
Click to expand...

True that. Customers often have unrealistic expectations.
 
I agree completely about the microenvironment within the frame, and that we do well to control it to the degree possible as the customer will allow. At the same time, we need to dispel the expectation of total flatness that many people consider the ideal.
:popc: Rick
 
I have had quite a few of these pieces coming in; the textile around it is usually a fabric tape; it does make the paper wavy.

I always explain what I can do, what I might be able to do and what is completely impossible to do.

Is this a returning customer Doug? It might give you a bit more flexibility. If first time customer; he/she will probably not be back with more work, no matter what you do or are able to do at this point.
 
Yes, take it out of the frame and give the customer their money back. Then send them down the road to "Badframer" who will drymount or wet mount or something and the customer will be happy and the art will hang sucessfully for the next 50 years. What business are we in? I'm in the framing business where a customer comes to me to put the art in a display suitable to their needs. The sign on my store doesn't say "Art Preservator", its says "Picture Framer". No doubt I want to use techniques to give the art as long a life as I'm able but as health care can't keep everyone alive for 100 years neither can framing make all art last forever. Perhaps the piece of art in question will become important some day - it will probably need a skilled conservator no matter how it's framed today.
 
Hmmm... interesting conversation from you all.


Yes, it is a good valued returning customer. I'm not too interested in returning the piece unframed and telling her to go down the road. Mostly because I don't accept defeat. :)

I just took the piece out of the frame. The artwork is not on rice paper, but more like regular watercolor paper. The decorative linen is more like a tape, with a third tape/ribbon below that. The whole thing is mounted on another piece of water color paper behind that. So indeed, there already is a lot of glue and different materials each fighting each other. The artwork does not lay flat on its own anyway.

My thoughts on wet mounting is that this just introducing more glue to the equation and another type of material which could only compound the bending, expanding, and a contracting. And even if its a worthless piece of tourist art, seems like more than I want to run in my drymount press.

I, too, am not a "art preservator", but for as long as I have this business, I would much rather learn and do things the right way rather than the right-now way.


At this point, I think I'll try a true DCO mount (since I'm halfway there anyway and want use this technique), and also tell the customer about the different materials and why this will never lay flat.


Thank you everyone for your input, please keep this conversation going.
 
The linen and tape around it - is it part of the original art? Or was it done by someone after the fact? In other words, was the art all ready damaged by someone else (sort of a framer adding a decorative border)? Perhaps if the art is of suitable importance it should go to a conservator to have the border tape removed and the paper flattened. Then it could be framed in suitable preservation framing. So, who is to determine the importance and/or value of this art? Is the artist available to give an opinion. Does the owner have an opinion and a budget. Is there a government body or art law lobbying group to tell us what to do. Or should you just make the customer happy and make a profit? If you want to make the customer happy it's going to have to be fairly flat. Just do it!
 
Here is an article worth reading on what makes paper buckle in a frame:
http://www.frametek.com/HTML/Articles/Buckling.html

The 3 most important things I think are going wrong is:

1. No airspace over the art. The humidity will be different around the edges than in the center.

2. Too much or ANY pressure against the back of the art. It must be allowed to expand and contract freely with changes in humidity. If it's big, It should be hinged over the top of the backing to let the piece "Hang". If it is standing on its bottom, it will tend to belly out ner the bottom.

3.You should tape seal the glass-art-backing package before you put it in the frame to stop and rapid changes in humidity.
 
Bandsaw said:
Yes, take it out of the frame and give the customer their money back. Then send them down the road to "Badframer" who will drymount or wet mount or something and the customer will be happy and the art will hang sucessfully for the next 50 years. What business are we in? I'm in the framing business where a customer comes to me to put the art in a display suitable to their needs. The sign on my store doesn't say "Art Preservator", its says "Picture Framer". No doubt I want to use techniques to give the art as long a life as I'm able but as health care can't keep everyone alive for 100 years neither can framing make all art last forever. Perhaps the piece of art in question will become important some day - it will probably need a skilled conservator no matter how it's framed today.
Click to expand...

LOL.... Definitely the BEST ANSWER of the Bunch.

If the customer wants it flat... 'Flat' is what it shall be! However, in order to achieve it, we need to 'explain the risks' and the process a bit first. Once they've had a chance to digest it, they could then go ahead or walk away... Completely up to them. On every Quotation, Deposit or Invoice receipt, I had a fairly clear 'waiver' that basically told people that they when they leave it with me, they do so at their OWN risk. It would have been VERY RISKY for me to have NOT had some kind of 'Waiver' even though we don't really 'SUE' for things like that where I live, but as we know,.... People can be pretty 'Freaky' about their 'cherished items' :D

Cheers,
 
From the description of the item, it sounds as if there is little chance that it can be made to be flat, without overall mounting. When fabric and paper are combined, serious tension differentials are likely to result. Examining the contours of the item out of the frame with the owner and explaining the dangers of mounting may help lower her expectations, but all too often framers are expected to pull rabbits out of hats. The framer should not take on risky jobs, just becasue clients have overly high expectations.



Hugh
 
W.C.Framer said:
At this point, I think I'll try a true DCO mount ...
Click to expand...

A DCO mount provides only marginal vertical support. If the art is heavy, it may be difficult or impossible to support it adequately in a DCO mount.

The pressure of a DCO mount using acrylic may tend to flatten the art assembly, but maybe not enough to make it completely flat. You can create more pressure by using multiple layers of needle-punched polyester batting and a thicker sheet of acrylic. Abrasion-resistant treatment is recommended because the soft surface of the plastic glazing could be abraded by the art over time. 97% or better UV-filter is recommended to reduce light damage. Optical coatings are recommended to provide the best view.

Are you sure there is nothing on the art's surface that would stick to or be abraded by the DCO?
 
There's a chance this linen tape could abrade. Its roughly the same surface roughness as Bainbridge's linen mats, such at B4842, except there's a raised texture.

I also just did a little testing on the front counter. With batting underneath, and acrylic on top, the print still was not flattened. Even pressing down on top of the acrylic didn't smooth it out. Only when I took out the batting, and made a hard sandwich of countertop->art->acrylic, did it come close...but still not totally flat. So maybe a gatorboard back, acrylic overlay (but without the batting), hinged over the top, space, then glass and frame?

Looks like inevitably I'm going to calling this client to say it can't be done. But first, I believe there's a local conservator who I might be able to get an opinion from.
 
W.C.Framer said:
With batting underneath, and acrylic on top, the print still was not flattened... Only when I took out the batting, and made a hard sandwich of countertop->art->acrylic, did it come close...but still not totally flat. So maybe a gatorboard back, acrylic overlay (but without the batting), hinged over the top, space, then glass and frame?
Click to expand...

Did you tell us the dimensions? If so, I missed that essential detail. At some point, an artwork would simply be too large for a DCO mount to function properly.

If you believe you can flatten the artwork using a DCO mount, I would be skeptical. That said, you can use materials more appropriate for the greater pressure on the package:

A) Use thicker acrylic to avoid deflection. Museum Optium is available in 6mm thickness, cut to size from some suppliers. All Optium acrylic products are "AR" acrylic, treated for abrasion resistance.

B) Use needle-punched polyester batting available from conservation suppliers. Ordinary polyester quilt batting from a fabric store may simply flatten; too soft to provide adequate spring tension under the pressure of the assembly.

C) Instead of placing the batting directly under the artwork, use a rigid backer in direct contact, such as a slightly-undersized sheet of 8-ply alpha cellulose with sanded edges. Place the batting under the rigid, undersized backer and above the frame-sized background board. For the rigid, undersized backer, a sheet of acrylic or aluminim composite material would be more rigid than alpha cellulose, but also more slippery, and it would have sharper edges. So, you would have to round-off the edges and cover those materials with a toothy fabric (such as muslin or polyester felt) in order to inhibit slipping of the artwork on the surface.

The spring-tension provided by the needle-punched polyester batting is a necessary component of the DCO mount. It would be difficult or impossible to maintain strong pressure throughout the normal expansion/contraction cycles without an element that could resist the force of compression.

Please do not use Gatorfoam or any such chemically invasive board inside a framing package that is supposed to be protective.
 
Now that you mention it, I think I remember you talking about "needle-punched" batting in your columns, Jim. Looks like more digging around is needed for that.

The overall size of the piece is 24x24 inches, full conservation is not a concern to the client.
 
Art for Tourists

Bandsaw said:
The linen and tape around it - is it part of the original art? Or was it done by someone after the fact?t!
Click to expand...

Some time ago i have seen a documentation about this kind of art - the borders are done to decorate the originals by women doing x amount a day. When finished, I noticed that the border lay flat, but the art was wavy...

Uta
 
So I still haven't touched this piece, maybe to work on it today.

However, our buddy Rick just posted a picture of a VERY similar piece to what I'm talking about. So all your questions will be answered if you peruse this picture:
http://thegrumble.com/showthread.php?t=52376
 
That piece is actually one of those tourist-type embroidered scenes, rather than a watercolor. It is somewhat wavy by nature. Cust. was on a strict budget so it's just a down-and-dirty DCO with clear acrylic.
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 
Possibly the only way to fix this is to have a new silk brocade properly mounted on. The customer is looking at a couple hundred if done by a trained Asian paper conservator. You might also ask Chris Paschke, she does this I think.

http://www.facebook.com/paschkec
 
With stuff like this, I usually explain to the customer that that's the nature of the work. It ain't going to lay flat. They usually accept my suggestion that I 'float' frame it, showing the edges with it 'Z' hinge mounted onto a raised backing. This always seems to work for me and the customer.
 
I'll buck the trend here and say that almost everyone of these that I have seen come in are cheap souvenir art. (Same style as some old valuable pieces, so framer beware) Most of these in my opinion can be mounted on restore or kooltack if customer wants them to lay flat. ( I'll admit I have done it on those known to be cheap tourist art) IMO, again most but not all are in the same catergory as canvas from China and the original spray can painting on shirt cardboard.

You've got to have the "talk" with the customer and all of that. I know all of the risks and so do you and that's a different subject.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top