Blues

Many years ago, there were just a few blues available to artists - cobalt, Prussian, coeruleum, French Ultramarine - and if you went to the Old Holland and one or two other ranges, all sorts of variants on a theme: Kings Blue, Smalt, and others. Then, years ago, a permanent alternative to Prussian Blue - which was alleged to fade in sunlight and regather strength in the dark: not a characteristic I ever noticed, but never mind - was introduced. It was called, variously - Monestial Blue; Winsor Blue; Pthalo (or Phthalo) Blue; Pthalocyanine Blue - and it probably had other names which I've forgotten. But it was all the same blue. In recent years, all sorts of new colours have been introduced. Some, such as the quinacridones, have been very useful - lightfast, and attractive. Others - such as mixes described variously as "country olive", "midnight green", "shadow", and God alone knows how many others, are at best contrived mixtures designed to help lazy painters replicate the exact results of their uninspiring tutors, and at worst completely unnecessary mixtures which can so easily be produced by anyone with the first clue about colour mixing. And now we've got Pthalo Blue (or Winsor Blue) Red Shade, and Pthalo Blue (or Winsor Blue) Green Shade. WHY? Finding a pure, clean Pthalo Blue is now quite difficult, though not impossible. If I wanted to alter Pthalo Blue (I think the term Monestial Blue has disappeared, possibly for patent reasons) I could - I didn't want, or need, or find in any way remotely useful, PB Red or Green Shade. I think, for my purposes, PB Green Shade is probably likely to meet my requirements; and fortunately there are still some manufacturers who make plain, simple Phtalo Blue. But why do the manufacturers muck about so much? Why bother with red or green shades when they're so pathetically easy to mix? Why collaborate with greedy artists who bend over themselves to produce ready-mixes rather than teach their eager students how to actually mix colours? Just asking, Winsor and Newton and Daler Rowney. I know why individual artists do it: it makes them money - but why do you indulge them? Does it really make such a difference to your profit margins? And don't you think it's just a little bit exploitative? I know PB red or green shades are one thing, while ready-mixed (frankly) rubbish like "country olive" etc are quite another. I also suspect that artists' materials are increasingly levered towards the "leisure painter" market - but do you never think that tinkering with colours panders to laziness and incompetence in colour mixing? That you can make it on the one hand too easy, and on the other far less satisfying - more bland; less individual; duller? Over the last few years, we've seen water miscible oils; "interactive" acrylics; ready-mixed colours - all right, some of this represents an advance. But some of it is - or isn't it? - just a retreat from any kind of real effort; without which, it seems to me, you can't hope to produce anything of worth. Open fire, then..... I think I've provided more than enough ammunition.