But first of all, thanks to everyone for making my painting of the Niton landslip one of this month's top ten most viewed images. Interesting that it was painted in acrylic, for reasons to which I shall shortly turn. First of all though; I've been painting on quite a small scale recently, on 7" by 5" chunky canvas; not entirely from choice - this was the size my brother wanted for his birthday present, to fit a space on his crowded walls. And I have discovered, as I should have known, that it really is not a great idea trying to cram too much into a canvas this size: the simpler the better - ie, the fewer objects the better. Or you end up with what may be a very colourful picture plane, and yet be entirely incapable of distinguishing any individual feature on it. You'd think I could have worked that one out without cramming one of them with so much information that it looks a bit like the average palette after a frenzied painting session, but there we are. Too impetuous, that's my trouble. Painting in oil at this size, and one a few inches larger, has been interesting . There isn't the room to be too experimental, or to build a painting up by fitting things in here and there (as I often do). You have to plan it properly beforehand - as you generally would with a watercolour. It proves, I think, what I've long believed: a large painting is much easier to do than a small one - the amount of calculation required is higher; and colour has to be more concentrated; a medley of different colours isn't going to work. So it's a useful discipline, and I commend it. I was reading the June issue of The Artist the other day, in which was an article by Oliver Lange about the oil painter Mike Healey (who certainly doesn't work on a small scale, tackling canvases of 30" by 48", for example). Amongst many other interesting things, he says he "would never work in acrylic paint - the colours seem plastic to me". Well, I certainly love oil paint; and watercolour.. However, many of my paintings have been in acrylic - the one that got into the top 10 most viewed was, mostly, painted in Chromacolour acrylic. It has been suggested, and I tend to agree, that acrylics sell less well than oils on canvas; because they are deemed to be "easier to do", or so someone wrote recently. What, I wonder, do we all think of this? What, indeed, do I think of it .... For what it's worth, this - acrylic painting is not easier than oil. It probably is easier, but that's a highly relative term, than watercolour - because it behaves more predictably, and if it doesn't it's easy to correct errors. But as painting isn't about just correcting errors, but producing a work that grabs the attention, I fail to see that any painting is "easy". It's different - very different - from oil; it isn't as rich as oil; it's harder to build up textures, unless you have resort to texture paste or one of the many media created for it - which as it happens I don't much like to do, although it's perfectly valid as an approach. It has a tendency to dry very flat, although this depends a lot on brand and consistency - heavy body acrylic is nearly as malleable as oil paint, and some has a sheen, which can be enhanced by medium or, ultimately, by varnish. These qualities may deter an oil painter from using it - I can see that: but these are pretty small quibbles: against which you have to list the advantages. Not just the obvious ones like quick drying, but the capacity of acrylic to allow painting in multiple glazes - something which you can only really do in oil if you're taking a year or so to complete one painting. So in terms of use, convenience, capacity to achieve results, acrylic is quite capable of defending itself against any other paint. But what about "plastic colours"? Is Mike Healey right? Rather than try to compare my own paintings in various media, I've taken a good look at the Gallery here - at paintings by Ade Brownlow, Malcolm Williamson, Charles Wilby, and others. Three very different painters, in other words. Do their paintings look plastic? Well, do they? I think not; not at all; not in any way. Being old enough to remember when acrylics first became popular, especially the cheaper ranges (based on vinyl, I think), I can see that they did look harsh, plastic, garish even - I think this was partly the way in which they were used, eg in smooth paint, often rolled onto the canvas to create striking images in tune with the 1960s and 70s. Applied like that, they didn't do a lot for me, in general. But I also remember John Bratby's painting - it was hard-edged, yes; it was bright; but plastic? I wouldn't pick on Mike Healey for his observation - but I have heard it before. That you can't create subtle colour-shifts in acrylic, can't blend, they look hard and harsh, etc. But all that's saying is that acrylic isn't oil, isn't watercolour or tempera .... did you expect it to be? If not, why the disappointment? There are things that each of the available media can do that either can't be done, or are more difficult (or hardly worth trying) in the others. The only sense in which I agree with Mike Healey about acrylic's plastic look is that sometimes pure white touches, while seeming to be strong and brave and bold at the time, can often look glaringly obvious later; and so I'd always tone them down, even if very slightly, with a yellow, or red, or violet generally. Otherwise, I defend acrylic against the accusation of looking like plastic; I suspect Mike just loves his oil paint and doesn't want to use anything else; but as colour and its appreciation is such an individual thing, I wonder what other POL-ers think?