Why have glass/plexi in a frame at all?

[f/stopblues]

I really enjoy looking at paintings hung in local galleries and museums and it struck me that the vast majority of them have no glass or any kind of protection in front of the surface. It seems like common practice whether in the formal museum of art or at an art fair.

Photos, however, are nearly always protected. I've always had a gut reaction against putting glass in a photo frame, but I've always gone with it because that's "the norm."

Are any of you out there showing in exhibits or selling work that has no layer of protection in its final format? Is there a compelling reason photos and paintings are treated differently in this regard?

Thanks!

 

[Andrew4x5]

I think the main reason for putting photos behind glass is that they are not as easy to clean as paintings, and are more susceptible to contaminants.
When one of my photo frames fell off the wall and broke the glass, I sprayed the photo with gloss photo "varnish" - the result was a brilliant print that, ten years later, is still more vibrant that its peers.
Perhaps the downside is that the varnish will eventually crack, darken, etc, so it depends how long you want the print to last.

 

[DWThomas]

Mmmm -- oil and acrylic paintings are typically displayed uncovered, but watercolors, pastels and most works on paper are just about always behind glass. The oil mediums can just about be washed, but other materials can be damaged by contact or abrasion or even rough handling, in the case of pastels.

DaveT

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Well, I am a carbon printer and I no longer use glass or any other glazing for my work. It detracts from the textured relief of my images. The difference is huge and I want to show my work in the best possible way. If someone owns one of my works then they will have to be careful with it. A carbon print is very stable.

Jim

 

[David Brown]

... most works on paper are just about always behind glass.

Yes, there's the common denominator.