Hello - 
I am about to make a purchase of Miller's Tonight we make history. (Large)

If anyone is keen to sell - please send me a message with your pricing/framing/location. 

Would be open to making a quick deal if it's at better pricing than what is currently being offered. 

Kind regards, 

Following

It's his

Hey folks - need some advice on how to frame Millers Tonight we make history. 

I know his usual is white on white - ive seen some black mount on black frame im not mad at either. U

A framer suggetsed I Plexi box the print, and then put it inside a wood frame - to make the image look like its hanging in the framed box without any plexi inbetween the image and the frame. 

Utimately im trying to make the print look more like a canvas as the image is edge to edge on the paper.

Thoughts? 
(all images owned by instagram/their handle owners - not trying to steal anything here - just uploading for inspiration) 

I think you're good to go either with either option. I frame everything I own white on white, but the darker options do look nice with this print.

The white on white is classic but I'd be curious to see this plexiglass option in action.

The plexi is amazing, truly amazing.
But to be honest, if you don’t have unlimited cashflow I would go with a good uv glass. It sure isn’t as good as the optimum acrylic but it’s totally ok.
Just make sure you have the solid corner hangers (no wire) and solid screws and you should be good (as long as you don’t live in an shed in an earthquake area ofc).

White frames looks best with miller prints imo, the black looks great on photo but tend to draw attention from the work in person. Don’t know why this is the case for miller prints.



Edit: Realized they might not be as common as I first thought. My framer use hangers similar to these, gets the frame flat to the wall and very secure. Called wallbuddies;

What a great idea. It’s so hard to get pieces level where two nails/screws are needed. Problem solved.

I got a custom spray job from Pauli Frames. Really hard to see in photos but it’s was done with a sliver undercoat with matt black sprayed on top so it has a slight sparkle and kind of complements both the black and the silver. Otherwise known as passing the time!

i.imgur.com/nCbqTB8.jpg

i.imgur.com/YRTGPRC.jpg

Visually, this seems ideal. To my eye, hung artwork never looks better than when it's flush against a wall. Clean, simple, unfussy.


That said, I would advise against using such a hanging system for most homes. At the very least, have a chat with an art restorer beforehand. Because the aesthetic benefits are likely to be outweighed by concerns over conservation.

Lack of space between frame and wall means poor air circulation, which is asking for trouble.

Most rooms fluctuate in temperature and humidity throughout the year, and even throughout the day. Walls are of course also affected. And if there's only a small gap between a wall and picture frame, the risk of damage to an artwork from damp is exacerbated.

Bear in mind too that mould spores are everywhere and airborne. They're especially attracted to unventilated, damp areas — the perfect environment for mould to take hold and grow.

This is one reason why a number of institutions and collectors add round pads of cork or felt to the bottom corners of their hung frames. The idea is to push the base of a frame away from the wall. Besides offering scuff protection, the pads more importantly allow for improved air flow.

... bearing in mind a point I have previously brought up, some museums, art fairs and gallery / exhibitions do not permit non-reflective glass.

Sorry, forgot to add that you should place distances to make an air gap to the wall. So that the art hangs straight but are not completely flush, thanks for bringing it up!

I'm unfamiliar with the other thread you refer to.

Which museums, art fairs and galleries do not permit non-reflective glass?


From a health and safety perspective, query what specific risk needs to be addressed for artwork already hung on a wall. Hypothetically, a frame might get knocked down if a member of the public were to examine a piece too closely and bump their nose against the glazing. But that doesn't sound like a risk significant enough to merit a ban on non-reflective glass.

As for consistency of appearance, such an argument seems a little bizarre. Like tall poppy syndrome, but for the presentation of art: "We cannot allow certain pieces to be showcased in an ideal manner. Because this would place other pieces (whose owners are unable or unwilling to invest in quality glazing) at a disadvantage. Out of fairness, we must therefore ensure that all works look equally bad." [If this kind of consistency really is a concern for some institutions, then presumably unglazed framed paintings are also prohibited, since they too lack distracting reflections.]


The only other possible reason I can think of relates to conservation. It's my understanding that non-reflective coatings let more natural light pass through — thereby allowing our eyes to see the art with greater clarity. If this is correct, then (compared to reflective glass and acrylic) non-reflective glazing may expose works to a slightly higher risk of damage from natural light.

Have you managed to sort the framing yet firstimer?

Would be great to see where you are at, and any pictures of the finished job?