The following information about historical photographic framing practices is taken from the wikipedia Fine Art Photography page.
In light of what is written below, I’m interested in your opinion on what you like in framing – what is gimmicky versus what will stand the test of time, to matte of not to matte, with or without glass, plexiglass mounting, thoughts about printing and mounting on metal, etc.
Until the mid 1950s it was widely considered vulgar and pretentious to frame a photograph for a gallery exhibition. Prints were usually simply pasted onto blockboard or plywood, or given a white border in the darkroom and then pinned at the corners onto display boards. Prints were thus shown without any glass reflections obscuring them. Steichen’s famous The Family of Man exhibition was unframed, the pictures pasted to panels. Even as late as 1966 Bill Brandt‘s MoMA show was unframed, with simple prints pasted to thin plywood. Since about 2000 there has been a noticeable move toward once again showing contemporary gallery prints on boards and without glass.
Hi Bret. My preference is to see a photo matted and framed behind glass. It just looks 'finished' to me when done that way. Having said this, I agree reflections on that glass do distract from the work, but to me, that's just life. I also admit to liking some work simply mounted on foam core – but as said, my favourite is behind glass. Jamie Ramage