Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
LIGHTFASTNESS
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Message
Posted
I often wonder if we get too hung up about this topic. There are many different techniques used by various artists which are questionable. I know a number of professional and semi-professional artists many of whom work in the abstract field whose work sells for hundreds and even thousands of pounds and yet they employ a wide range of these techniques. Immediately coming to mind are the uses of household emulsion paint, wallpaper paste, coffee powder, poster paints and wood dye.
The enjoyment, for me at least, of painting is the creative activity itself and if the work doesn't endure beyond my lifetime is it really such a bad thing? After all how much of the work of grafitee artists (exposed to the weather and the ravages of developers) will endure, and what about sand artists and pavement artists.
Methinks we do get a tad too hung about the issue - does it really matter or are we all so self-deluded that we expect our works to be admired and held in esteem for centuries to come?
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
It makes sense to use materials of as near to archival quality as possible IF you're hoping your work will endure either beyond your lifetime, or for the next 2 years - because it's easily within the latter period that certain pigments can fade away to nothing.
Art that is intended for the moment, and no longer, needn't meet the same test - or any test, necessarily; it can be digitally preserved, if the artefact itself has no inherent value. The Emin bed, for example, could be photographed and re-created - it's not necessary to cart the thing from exhibition to exhibition.
If on the other hand this really is about lightfastness, which is not the same thing at all, then pictures that fade in a matter of months are unlikely to delight the person who paid for them - and my question would be why use materials you know to be inferior if you have the choice not to use them?
Posted
I do agree with Robert regarding always buying the best materials available. For example I would never buy students quality rather than artists - but that's more to do with quality than anything else. However I wouldn't avoid a colour in a range simply on the grounds that it isn't so lightfast as others in the same range. Objections about lightfastness of a product wouldn't stop me from experimenting with it if I can achieve effects with that product which I would not otherwise be able to achieve.
I am currently trying out wallpaper paste which can give great crackle effects - might only last, I don't know, say 50 years or so but, as I said above, I'm not so worried about that aspect of it. If my painting was restricted to the 'rule book' much of the excitement would go out the window.
I guess my thoughts are shaped by my enjoyment with experimenting and creativity and may not be shared by those who enjoy and stick to more traditional representational work.
Posted
Yes David, I use Nescafé powder more or less diluted. It gives as many shades of a nice brown as watercolour.
Marjorie, I don't know if tea can be used as concentrated as pure coffee powder. Anyway, it is sometimes the only "colour" I have at hand immediately when I am working in the living room, there is always a jar of Nescafé next to me. And I am enjoying what I am doing. :) Mia
Posted
Just a brief return (well: my INTENTION is to be brief, anyway): I understand the points about, basically, spontaneity, experimentation, not needing to last into the vast chasm of time (assuming we've got that long as a species) but when we do have such a range of lightfast materials I don't think the problem arises so much.
E.g. - we all know that in watercolour (and this is where most lightfastness issues arise, though not all) Alizarin Crimson, used alone and in thin washes, will fade - probably, anyway. We know that Rose Madder Genuine fades. Aureolin is a touch questionable (mind you, I have used it) real Gamboge will fade, as will Opera Rose, and for those who use it or can even find it any more, Geranium Red. In oil, we know there's a question mark over Zinc White, especially applied in early layers, on flexible surfaces, and the fact that it's included in some other colours (eg, Georgian Naples Yellow, and some brands of Titanium White). In acrylic, there are very few such issues; in Gouache, a good many more.
But - we've got Winsor Red, Quinacridone red and violet, permanent magenta and permanent rose (which usually are quinacridones), all the earth colours, whites in oil minus Zinc (available in Jackson's and Ken Bromley's own Titanium Whites, both excellent paints), pthalo colours (sorry Syd!) and viridian (sorry Syd again!), modern versions of Indigo, sepia, and Indian Yellow ... ultramarines, cobalts, ceruleans, synthetic earth colours (the Mars range) - and here are some of you blighters using coffee and tea! (Shh - I've used coffee as well, when basically mucking about.)
My point is only this - you can make some good inks from ox-galls, say; we can play about with steamed stinging nettles as a pigment if we want to - some have; but you don't really need to sacrifice light-fastness, or as near as we can get to it, any more and restrict yourself to a limited range of colour - I know that Alizarin Crimson, for example, is unique (still use a little in oil), I know Rose Madder Genuine is beautiful (again, still use it occasionally in oil) and I understand people using them; but there are alternatives that will very nearly match them - and it's just as interesting to mix, say, a little Winsor Red with Quinacridone Violet and see what you get as it is to plunge into a colour which is very attractive when laid down, but can go brown in a matter of months.
(And you can't get Aliz Crimson or Rose Madder Genuine in acrylic anyway, incidentally: the name may be the same, but the pigment isn't. And would anyone say there was a limited range of colours in acrylic? I rest my case - well, it was getting heavy.....)
