tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057826380522065501.post8077188308253356965..comments2023-12-28T23:27:33.142-05:00Comments on DLK COLLECTION: Ruud van Empel, Wonder @StuxDLKCOLLECTIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14875914464454488384noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057826380522065501.post-25466695609956666112011-04-26T09:18:20.581-04:002011-04-26T09:18:20.581-04:00An artist's view: Katie you are right except t...An artist's view: Katie you are right except that this kind of presentation is actually much heavier and more expensive than traditional framing. Plus it is very fragile and impermanent since plastic will turn yellowish quite soon. Irreparable: once it is damaged the print itself is inevitably damaged too, which is not necessarily the case with normal frames. It is a mystery why well informed gallerists accept and even encourage this short term shiny fashion.Akos Cziganyhttp://photo.spavia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057826380522065501.post-58617507807013618622011-04-26T07:21:39.444-04:002011-04-26T07:21:39.444-04:00When are collectors going to reject the entire dib...When are collectors going to reject the entire dibond and plexiglas approach? Our van Empel from Jackson Fine Art had to be refabricated TWICE! We had the same problem with a Phil Collins piece from Tanya Bonakdar gallery. Artists use this process because it's easier and less expensive than framing. Some will argue that it is the aesthetics of dibond/plexiglas that continue to attract artists to this process. Not so. At one time it seemed fresh and packed a punch, now it just looks tired.<br /><br />Do you have any ''mounted to plexiglas'' pieces in your collection? Would very much like to hear your opinion on this matter.Katie Robertsnoreply@blogger.com