Bondartistbond; I agree that everyone is allowed to voice their opinion on what they do.
If that is the case that 'nothing should be stretched', why is it the #1 method still used by museums around the world as well as many professional artists for their paintings.
With the world of art and picture framing framing being a very broad conversation topic there is room for many options based on many varied situations with the most being - in no specific order:
- customer expectations
- customer budget
- expected use
- display requirement
- environmental conditions
- value of the art
- liability for viewers, the display area, and the art
You have not identified your picture framing experience to this group other than you were a picture framer. Some of us on this forum have decades of picture framing experience in all levels of this industry. Some of us also have knowledge far beyond that of basic picture framing.
Valid point about museums stretching instead of mounting. But, that is because as preservationists / conservationists, museums prefer to keep the artwork as close to how it was originally created/displayed as possible. If the original was created as a stretched canvas, the museum will preserve it on a stretched canvas. If the original was painted on panel, the museum will preserve it on panel. Altering it from its original state would decrease the value of it. Museums don't necessarily do what's best for the longevity of the artwork. They do what is historically accurate and in keeping with it's original state. Altering that state could decrease it's perceived value in the market.
But evidence is quite clear that the expansion and contraction of the support is one of the leading causes of cracking in the paint film of a work of art. Yes there are other factors at play, but even the best practices to minimize those issues are largely negated by the instability of stretched canvas. Stretched canvas expands and contracts far more than any other option. Wood panels also expand and contract, but not as badly as a stretched canvas. Foam core and gator board also expand and contract. But again, not as much as a stretched canvas. I use ACM for my original art. Of all the options available to an artist, ACM or copper panels are the most dimensionally stable options and therefore provide the most protection against cracking of the paint film.
When it comes to inexpensive prints, crafts, or art then my opinion is more a matter of aesthetics. The waviness from a stretched canvas is unsightly.
Regarding many professional artists using stretched canvas, some prefer the "bounce" that occurs when applying the brush to canvas. It's a matter of the way it feels. Many artists also don't know how to prepare their canvases and simply purchase pre-stretched canvases from art stores. Others simply do it out of tradition. Others simply haven't educated themselves on what other options are out there. For the amateur artist, the art student, and many professional artists, they choose stretched canvas out of convenience and cost.
I have been a professional artist for nearly 30 years. I sell my original art. It is my only source of income. I used to stretch my own canvas, but learned of the inferiority of it many years ago. I then began to mount my canvas to wood panels, but larger sizes became problematic. I then used gatorboard, which can be a great option, but it is very easy to puncture and the edges and corners are easy to damage. When I discovered ACM, that was a game changer.
As a professional artist, I know a lot of other professional artist. The amount of professional artists painting on a rigid support (whether cradled wood panels, gatorboard, or ACM) is actually a very large percent. I can't speak for all sectors of the art world, but in the realm that I am most familiar with, which is representational art, many if not most artists in the top levels paint on a rigid support. Of those who I know personally, which are many, nearly all of them use a rigid support. Of those who are represented by the same galleries as me, I see their work in the galleries, most of them are on rigid supports. When I attend major shows and visit other galleries where other top artists exhibit, most of them are on rigid supports. Many of the artists I follow, but don't know personally, show their process on IG or Facebook. A large percentage of them use a rigid support.
In short, the top representational artists in the country are using rigid supports because it preserves their artwork better. From my experience, the up-and-coming artists, students, and amateurs are the ones primarily using stretched canvas. I know this is purely anecdotal, but we artists do talk among ourselves and those who are the most serious are very aware of best practices in regards to how to ensure their art lasts.
And finally, you asked me about my experience. Before diving into art full-time, I worked for 7 years in the picture framing industry. Most of that time was in your typical frame shop framing for everyday customers. Everything from cross stitch to photographs and shadow boxes etc. The last 2 years was at a shop that mostly did very high-end framing. We're talking hand-carved, hand-gilt karat leaf museum quality frames. During the entire 7 years I was also an aspiring artist. When I quit my "day job" to become a full time artist, I built my own frames from scratch...meaning...raw basswood molding, hand carved elements in the corners, hand gilt with either karat gold or imitation gold. Patina applied by hand. For many years I made my own frames and still do on occasion, but since it takes longer to build a frame than to do the painting, I now buy most of my frames from professional gilders. The frames I use are now exclusively karat gold (no imitation gold) on hand carved museum quality frames. I sometimes use a black frame with only gold on the lip. But again, it's karat gold and hand crafted frames. Closed corners. No chop frames.
As for my stretching vs mounting experience, again, 30+ years.
I do realize that for certain situations stretching is the better option based on the points you list. But in my opinion, those situations are rare. But in most cases, mounting is a far better option, whether cost, aesthetics, or conservation of the artwork. If I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a rare, historical, expensive work by an old master, I wouldn't mount that either. Why? The same reason the museums wouldn't. Because that is not how the artist did it. It would devalue the work because it would alter it from its original condition. Though I would argue that it would hold up better in the long term if it was mounted. Sometimes concessions are made.
Anyway, those are my two cents worth.
Yes, there are those that disagree. And that's fine. I did start my original statement saying it was my opinion.
