Marion Gunderson Art (and the Farmer's Daughter)

(Click here to go to this blog’s home page. If you haven’t already, for optimum understanding, read Part I before you read this Part II post.)

This original watercolor by Mother (Marion Gunderson) is now protected by museum glass* which blocks 98% of UV rays. Notice that the glare is very minimal. Before this week, the glass used here was just regular clear, which blocks only about 47% of UV rays. With regular glass previously on this painting at this particular location, the glare prohibited anyone from seeing the detail of the painting unless the viewer was very close to the painting. Even with just a single mat, I didn't want to use regular non-glare glass (which also blocks 47% of UV rays) because I wanted brilliant color and crisp detail. Even with just one mat, that brilliance and clarity would not be as likely with the filmy look of non-glare glass in combination with a mat. The reason for that is when there is any distance between artwork and the glass, even if it is just the thickness of a mat, some of the brilliance and clarity is lost. This is even more true when a double or triple mat is involved. (Click photo to enlarge.)

Maybe two or three framers in central-Iowa just figured I already knew all about conservation clear glass and therefore never felt the need to tell me about conservation clear glass. That is understandable. But, I was a little miffed recently when I, in the spirit of shopping locally, took the original of Angel in Wine and Blue to be framed at a central-Iowa frame shop. At the same time, I asked that central-Iowa frame shop owner about museum glass for another painting. The owner pointed to a box of conservation clear glass and said that, yes, the shop carried conservation clear and that it is the same thing as museum glass.

Because of Mona Majorowicz at Wild Faces Gallery educating me, I knew this was not true. I said something else to the owner about museum glass. The owner then repeated that conservation clear is the same as museum glass.

WHEHLLL! Knowing that this was not true, I said that I wanted the UV protection benefit of conservation clear, but that I also wanted the minimal glare that is possible with museum glass. (Museum glass also provides protection against 98% of UV rays.) I got a “look” from the shop owner. She then proceeded to tell me that museum glass is so expensive (which it is) and that it would not be cost-effective to purchase it for the shop because of the expense.

Ok, so why didn’t she just tell me that in the first place? Instead, she knowingly tried to pass off the conservation clear glass that she had in stock for museum grade glass.

Back to Wild Faces Gallery…Mona typically doesn’t carry museum glass due to the expense, either; but at least she was up front in telling me that instead of trying to pull one over on me.

* * * * * * * *

If anyone asks, I’m not going to mention the name of the frame shop where I was told that conservation glass is the same as museum glass. My point is not to make a bad name for anyone. Plus, I’ve almost always been pleased with the overall look of my framing done at the shop. My point is for people to become educated about framing materials, if they aren’t already.

*Museum glass is quite expensive. The 20″ x 20″ piece of glass needed for this framed painting was about $120, including labor. Except for maybe one other piece of artwork, I probably won’t use museum glass on anything else because it is so expensive. I will use conservation clear glass on nearly everything I get framed.

(Click here to go to Louise Shimon’s blog’s home page.)

(Click here to go to this blog’s home page.)

I’ve had a fair amount of artwork framed. Not until about a year ago had anyone at a frame shop explained to me the importance of using conservation clear glass (as opposed to regular glass) when framing Mother’s original watercolors.

About a year ago, I began having most of my artwork framed by Mona Majorowicz, owner of Wild Faces Gallery in my hometown of Rolfe, Iowa. I knew that Mona’s gallery in Rolfe existed, but I’d never stepped foot inside the gallery. I’d always had my artwork framed elsewhere, probably thinking that a framer in a little town like Rolfe just couldn’t have as much to offer as one would in a more populated area. WRONG.

Not only does Mona offer quality framing (as do many frame shops); she also provides design expertise coupled with actively listening to her customers’ framing wants/needs (more than at any other frame shop I’ve been to). In addition, she offers lower pricing than most (maybe all?) shops I’ve frequented, and Mona cares about every piece she frames.

With that care, Mona stressed to me the importance of using conservation clear glass on anything that is really important to me (especially if it would be difficult to replace if it fades) and acid-free mats. I’d heard the passing mention of acid-free mats before, but, before Mona did, no framer had ever before explained and expressed to me the importance of selecting nothing but acid-free mats.

* * * * * * * *

Part II will be posted within a day or two.

(Click here to go to Louise Shimon’s blog’s home page.)

(Click here to go to this blog’s home page.)

Mother (Marion Gunderson), me (Louise Gunderson Shimon), and our television sometime between November 1955 and February 1956. (Click on photo to magnify the dial.)

After reading Jerry Farlow’s comments (two posts ago) about watching television in 1950 with Gary (or Greg?) Kaiser at Rickards’ store in Rolfe, Iowa, I called Gary Kaiser* and asked him, “Do you remember that?”

Gary: Oh, sure. I visually remember Rickards’ hardware store and that television sitting in the middle of the store. One channel was WOI and then they would try to get Mason City. I don’t remember the name of that station in Mason City. Those were the two stations that would come in. It was Saturday night and we would watch wrestling that was just pathetic. That’s what you watched. They would turn the dial trying to get a better picture. It was snow and then you might see visions of what it was. That‘s about all we got to see.

Gary: Here in Sioux City we have on Channel 4 a Breen. His grandfather, Ed Breen, owned the Fort Dodge TV station. Ed was a very distinguished man. I remember him as having a moustache that would look so debonair. Ed’s grandson is currently a newscaster here for Channel 4 in Sioux City.

Gary: I don’t remember when it came on the air but I remember on the Fort Dodge station they had a Barndance show. It aired on Saturday nights and it was so amateur that it was pathetic.

Louise: I remember Barndance. There was a girl a year older than I am, from Rolfe. Her name was Rania Kuchenreuther. I remember Rania singing “Tiny Bubbles” on Barndance.

Gary: There was also an elderly lady…remember this is live television. She was on on a regular basis. I don’t believe she should have been on television. It was that amateur.

Gary: I do remember Ed Breen as being so distinguished with his moustache and a blazer. And everything was live. Ed owned the station and, of course, when you owned the station I believe you were “on.” I remember him being on most of the time. This was not big production. This was, “I own, it. I’ve got to run it.”

Gary: Barndance was on Saturday nights at I think about 6:30. This would be in about 1955.

Louise: Was the Uncle Dick show on at that time?

Gary: I don’t remember that one. I do remember Jim Henry’s [Canyon Kid**] show coming in from Sioux City. The guy is still alive. He’s about 90 years old and he had cartoons every afternoon.

Louise: Are you meaning Floppy?

Gary: Oh, no. Floppy was on WHO out of Des Moines.  That gentleman is no longer living.

Gary: In Sioux City it was all local. Jim Henry’s model was…he had a vest that had every type of button you could think of on it. And that vest is in the museum here in Sioux City. That’s history of television in its earliest days.

Louise: So, when there was that television set in the middle of Rickards’ store, was that the first you had seen television?

Gary: Oh, sure.

Louise: Did you go there repeatedly?

Gary: On Saturday nights we’d go there, or Saturday afternoons. It was one of those things that…I think they had wires hanging in the store to get better reception. They kept moving the antennae trying to get better reception. It would fade in and fade out. I remember about the snow. You’d look at the picture and you could almost see something but you weren’t sure. That’s what it was at that time.

Louise: When did you get a television in your home?

Gary: Oh, I’m trying to think if it was ’53 or ’54. They were round…the picture tube was round when you looked at it.

Louise: Do you mean as round as a circle?

Gary: It was as round as a circle.** That was the picture in the tube.

* * * * * * * *

My intent is to post by tomorrow night (Sunday) about the next project endorsed by the Rolfe Public Library board.

*This transcript is posted with Gary Kaiser’s permission.

**This Canyon Kid YouTube video was produced by IPTV.

(Click here to go to Louise Shimon’s blog’s home page.)

(Click here to go to this blog’s home page.)

These images from the April 3, 1924, issue of The Rolfe Arrow aren’t nearly as juicy as the 1914 Arrow ad I included in the last post. Yet, in this day and age it is hard to believe that once upon a time a brand new automobile could be purchased for $295.

Click on this photo to read who bought new Fords in 1914, and to get a glimpse of how taxes were of concern.

.

From the April 3, 1924, Rolfe Arrow. (Click on photo to enlarge.)

.

Does anyone know who owned the Rolfe Auto Co.?

(Click here to go to Louise Shimon’s blog.)