Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Alkyds and en plein air
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.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
A brief come-back on this - I'm very interested in the technical side, and have been for a great many years. When I was writing my e-book though, I needed to keep things simple and not delve into the more complex areas because I knew I'd lose people like snow melting off a warm roof if I did. I had to simplify, and try to maintain interest (and gracious me, I succeeded absolutely brilliantly, as goes without saying......).
But one is occasionally reduced to saying "don't do that", or "do that", without really having the freedom and time to explain why. On the whole, I would guess, and Alan rather confirms it, that people don't want to read all this stuff because they trust the manufacturers to do the research so that we don't have to. Which from my point of view is fine, except that manufacturers are also aware of commercial pressures - and so keep on producing paints which they know to be unsatisfactory because generations of painters have got used to them. Plus of course, knowledge moves on - a manufacturer may have recommended a product in good faith twenty years ago, only to discover in recent years that it's not as reliable as they thought it was: what do they then do? Gradually, and rather quietly, they refine the product; change its components - and then they get found out and people say "what have you done to your Alizarin Crimson? Why have you introduced a Permanent Alizarin? What are you saying? Why isn't it the same as the old Alizarin?" - in short, the manufacturers can't win whatever they do: but I'd rather they kept improving their product, and some of us will understand what they're up to and can pop up to defend them now and then (or not, if they don't).
That doesn't mean we all need to turn ourselves into paint chemists, though; just that some of us who have the interest might contribute a bit now and then, hopefully without boring the pants of others who (like us) just want to paint. I too just want to paint, and by and large that's what I do - but then, you know: brain the size of a planet, what do you do with it.....? I'd not seen myself as a shaman, though - hmm. Very mystic - is there a free robe with the job?
(Mats, thanks for the reply on Shin Han - makes sense, as do your comments about the Rowney Georgian range - which I remain happy to use, as excellent value for money.)
Posted
PS - didn't read Alan's last post properly: if anything, the cheaper and more basic the products you used back then, probably the better - there have been some mediums produced since you were at art college which were a disaster waiting to happen; thankfully, you couldn't afford them!
I expect you wouldn't have used Copal Oil medium, for example - and were much better off without it, because it darkens over time - I used it on a painting in the 70s, and have watched it get darker every time I visit my mother, who still has it. Thankfully, I didn't use it much - and there's not a lot of my stuff from 50 years ago that was worth preserving, either....
An art student's oil, maybe on Dalerboard, thinned down with Turpentine and probably quite thinly painted as well - I've seen a few of those, painted anything up to 60 years earlier, which (apart from maybe a bit of damage to the corners of the board, and generous layers of dust, dirt, and spider excrement) look as if they were painted just a year ago.
Posted
This hideous "earth spirit" illustrates the concept, an oil in Lindström style. It is called forth by me, the shamanic painter, out of the earth, which is raw umber, from where it slowly takes shape. In it are hidden golden fragments (gold foil), representing the spiritual gold, the Ars Alchemica. So the spirit becomes captured in the image, like the Mercurius is contained in the Vas Hermeticum of the alchemist. The shamanic and alchemical concept of oil painting is suggested by James Elkins in "What Painting Is. How to Think about Oil Painting, Using the Language of Alchemy", Routledge 1999.
I'm just saying that we must take oil painting more seriously, and not view it merely as a personal pleasure. Malevich's credo was that art must show the way to future developments. /Mats
Edited
by MWinther
Posted
There is some truth in what you say Robert, much of my work was actually painted on a type of canvas with a backing, similar to today's stuff, but not often on a stretcher, although we did make our own out of scrap wood begged from the local timber merchants scrap pile, which was used for firewood. Full of knots, damp, dirty and warped, but we didn't care in those days, anything that we could lay our grubby little hands on was a bonus. Once painted, we took off the finished canvas and made another. Yes, Dalerbord was an option I think, but usually hardboard was the cheapest form of support, primed with emulsion from Father's shed. Pretty well all of what I have kept from those days have survived the ravages of time, as you have said, they look like yesterday's work.
All good character building I hope, and most of us turned out some decent work, mainly life drawings of course, that took up 50% of each day as I recall, rarely did we venture into the world of landscapes, but we did on occasion. Industrial subjects were always more acceptable to the tutor's and I loved working on those, I still do in fact.
I'm not a shaman either, I have no special magical powers to influence people, nor do I want to, but one thing that I am certain of is my passion for painting, and this has never wained, I put my heart and soul into every painting, and I've never ever found painting to be a nice relaxing little hobby, it's stressful and can be tiring, but I love it.
Posted
I think anyone who has ever contemplated one of your paintings knows very well that you pour all you've got into it, Alan. You have an invigoratingly expressive style - it would be fascinating to see some of your early works, if you ever feel like sharing them - I've seen some of the drawings and monochromes, not least in your avatar, but a glimpse of your full colour work should also be interesting, so one could get some idea of how you got where you are today.
Posted
Dear me, I do get gabby if something really interests me - sorry, but: Mats - I'm familiar of course with the Malevich work, and it's well known that it's deteriorated disastrously over the years (unless that's what he meant to happen?) - do we know why, what he did to cause this disastrous cracking? It's puzzled me for a long time, although I've made no effort to look into it: Russian academic teaching was, and remains, of the highest quality, and Malevich was educated by it - he was either very unlucky in the fate of his painting (although that hasn't limited its appeal) and was the victim of his own bad practice, or he DID know his work would deteriorate. Do we know which?
PS - I've just looked this up online, and there are pages and pages of piffle about the meaning of the painting - which on the whole seem to be speculative - and nothing at all about the fact that the thing is falling off the canvas and can't be exhibited outside of its home gallery, because even more chunks of paint would fall off. I'm wholly uninterested in academics' opinions about the meaning or significance of the work - they repeat themselves endlessly, borrow or steal from each other, and produce no more than the most flaccid conclusions (which I probably should have expected given the chasm lying between those who write about art and those who produce it) - but about why a painter schooled in the Russian tradition could produce a painting in the name of suprematism which can't even stay where it was painted there's nothing, or nothing I've found so far. It's assumed, probably correctly, that Malevich didn't intend his work to fall to bits - but no one seems even to have thought about it; or if they have, I can't find where they have.
It does seem typical of the art world, and art criticism, that when you look for answers to specific issues you just can't find them.
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
Perhaps Malevich used ivory black directly out of the tube. Wendon Blake ("The Oil Painting Book") says: "Ivory black has a tendency to crack when it's used straight from the tube, although it's fine when you use it in mixtures with other colors".
One shouldn't paint straight from the tube, although certain artists recommend this. It creates a weaker and less beautiful oil film, and it's a waste of paint.
Malevich made four variants of the Black Square. He was compelled, by Soviet authorities, to paint figuratively. But he put a black square in the paintings, anyway, instead of his signature. When he fell ill with cancer, Malevich decorated his own coffin with a black square.
It's the most important icon of modern art. I am thinking of making a copy of the first one, on a square box canvas, and use crackle varnish to achieve a corresponding effect.
In fact, I included the Black Square in this Suprematist painting from last week. It has a similar inclination on the right side, that is, it is not a perfect square. /Mats
Edited
by MWinther
Posted
Ivory black can do all sorts of peculiar things when applied in a solid layer - even with a brush. I used it in a painting and it "crept" - slipped from where it should have sat; and there was nothing I could do about it. Malevich would presumably have known of this tendency, and it may well have been that Ivory Black was all he had available to him. I don't know why it behaves in this way, other than that it's a slow drier - which isn't much of an explanation.
Van Gogh's methods of applying paint may have been unorthodox but, so far as I know, the only issue with his paintings, over which he had no control, was the impermanence of the pigments he used given he experimented with the vivid yellows that hadn't been available before. Chrome Yellow loses its intensity and turns to brown, and I think he had trouble even with the cadmiums then available. But the point is that - again, so far as I know - his paintings aren't cracking. So, if this is right, perhaps he knew a thing or two about paint application....
Posted
alanbickley (4/11/2016)... Oh yes, and as for being a waste of paint, that is surely for the artist to decide, and I expect that he/she wouldn't agree with that comment.This is a very common objection in all Internet forums: "people do as they like". It's as if a good advice or expressing a point of view is understood as an authoritative command, the proclamation of law, or as a declaration of the infallible Pope. I find this very curious. When I argue that paint should be mixed with medium, I expect a counterargument, not a hint that I shouldn't tell people what to do. I hold a view, that's all. Today's painting media are superb. Since paint is laden with pigment, one can add huge quantities of Liquin, for instance, to achieve remarkable trompe l'oeil effects, because the pigment particles become suspended in the medium, allowing the light to bounce around in the paint layer. Painting straight of the tube means that the surface layer of pigment hides 99% of the pigment underneath. Moreover, the paint film becomes weaker. Van Gogh didn't have this freedom, however. The Old Masters experimented very much and tried to create the perfect medium, such as Maroger. They tried to hide their inventions from competitors and wouldn't hang a painting publicly until it had dried, because other artists could detect by smell what ingredients had been used. If the Old Masters had had recourse to our modern media, they would have been elated, because they did everything they could to enhance the properties of the oil paint in order to get commissions. Mats
Edited
by MWinther
Posted
QUOTE: ''This is a very common objection in all Internet forums: "people do as they like". It's as if a good advice or expressing a point of view is understood as an authoritative command, the proclamation of law, or as a declaration of the infallible Pope.
I find this very curious. When I argue that paint should be mixed with medium, I expect a counterargument, not a hint that I shouldn't tell people what to do. I hold a view, that's all.''
I was merely expressing my view also, and a valid one, I didn't take your view as an authoritative command or law, I just didn't agree with it, others may and probably will agree with your view. Neither of our views are right or wrong, that is up to the individual to decide, I thought that this was the objective of a forum discussion, if we all agreed on the same things what would be the point of a forum, it would be rather boring, actually, many think it is boring anyway, and I include myself in that statement on occasional subject matter. Paint is better mixed with medium, I totally agree on that score, it does enhance the painting considerably, plus is a damn site easier to apply.
I think some of these topics are in danger of making the process of putting paint on canvas more difficult and confusing than it is, and I would think also that it could be quite intimidating for the beginner. Applying paint to a support is a simple process, once a few obvious points have been followed, priming etc. If it became a science that would take the object of painting away in my case.
Painting is a therapy for many artists', it's about spontaneous decisions, excitement of applying colours, technical prowess as in tonal values, perspective and shadows, and failures as well, which is inevitable. It isn't particularly a therapy for me, more like a burning ambition to paint, it's there with me constantly and is the reason that I do paint prolifically, I enjoy it so much. I love experimenting as some of you will know and this keeps my interest in painting from waning. I'm not all that keen on talking about art generally, not in any great depth anyway, and history of art at college was a distraction but so important of course.
In a nutshell I suppose that I prefer to get on with my painting, rather than talk about it, and I have an expansive gallery in the year that I have been posting on POL, all new stuff in the main, and is there for all to see and to comment on, good or adverse. This is in no way a criticism of those who do prefer to converse rather than actually paint, after all, it their choice.
Posted
I hope it isn't intimidating - I can see that it might be; but the farther you go in terms of technical advance, the more issues such as some of these will crop up. For some, that adds to the fascination of the subject, for others yes, I can understand that they might be convinced by it that oil painting is just too complicated and "not for the likes of us".
I wish I could remember where I read it, but years ago there was a discussion in a book on all these technical issues and the author said something like - but don't worry about it: many a good painting has been laid on a bit of primed sail-cloth, or even an old table cloth stretched over a frame: his point being that if you have to paint, you'll use whatever comes to hand; and if it doesn't last, well a) it yet might!, and b) you'll still have enjoyed the process and learned from it.
Daphne Todd, she of the recent TV programme and judge thereon, has referred to the great strength of oil paintings and resilience of the medium. It's reasonable to ask for durability and reliability, and for some though not all of us it's interesting to look deeply into the subject (or in my case, as deeply as my scientific understanding allows) but the fact is that oil paintings have endured for hundreds of years, even those that used materials greatly inferior to those we have today for the most part. The sounder they were technically, the better the condition in which they've come down to us, that's all.