Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Stand Oil & Turpentine Painting Medium Question
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
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I wouldn't bother with cobalt driers - the way to avoid very slow drying is to avoid very slow drying paint, for the bulk of your painting: so go easy on the Titanium White, Cadmiums, and Alizarin Crimson. But if you are going to use them, keep them to the bare minimum, which you should do with any medium. Linseed Oil is a drying oil - and stand oil a variant of Linseed; unless you're in an exceptionally moist environment (I've been to Macclesfield.....) the oil itself will promote drying in a safe period of time; people will hurry it along, or try to, but it seems to me that what they're doing is fighting the nature of oil paint itself, which takes its own good time to dry/cure and on the whole is best left to get on with it.
Posted
I am aware of Mr O'Hanlon's opinion regarding driers. However, the medium I proposed is a simple one. Its use would be reserved for the final thin glazes. To quote Ralph Mayer:
"As a general rule, driers detract from the life of paint and varnish films and are to be considered undesirable additions to oil paints and varnishes for permanent painting, especially when used indiscriminately. However, when sparingly applied with judgement by experienced painters, a good drier can be used with safety, and in some instances, as in glaze manipulations, may be essential."
The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques, 4th ed. revised and expanded, 1981
Posted
There are a lot of errors in Mayer's book; or more generously, much research has been done since he wrote it. The proposition that driers - there's more than one kind of course, and they don't all operate in the same way - might be "essential" in glaze manipulations is very dubious; might be true enough if one were glazing over very oil rich paint - but then, very oil rich paint is invariably slow-drying, and glazing over it in the short term - even weeks - would invite problems.
I don't find George O'Hanlon one of the most sympathetic commentators I've ever encountered by the way: but he does sell Cobalt and Japan driers, I believe, from his Natural Pigments website, so doesn't condemn their use whatever his reservations. What he and Mayer would both agree on is that driers of any kind should be kept to as low a proportion as possible - which suggests that your original idea about quantities is probably about right. The drier would be used in the base colour rather than the glaze itself - complications arise if you adopt the very old master technique of multiple glazes, but paintings in which such extensive glazing took place would generally be accomplished over a much longer period than painters are inclined to take today. Possibly to their detriment, though that's a matter of opinion: in any event, there's not much evidence that they tried to speed drying - crucially so far as I know and have read - between glazes.
Have you read Traditional Oil Painting, by Virgil Elliott? I can't remember if he covers this, so need to read it again myself. Probably the shorter and better answer to your question would have been "Yes, that's probably fine, keep it to the barest minimum" - but brevity has never been one of my characteristics.
Posted
Mr Mayer's books are knocking on a bit. There are a lot of new products on the market that were not available in Mayer's day. But from what I've read about the Northern European masters of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and the materials and techniques they used, the basics haven't really changed much. As well as being a painter Mr Mayer was a research chemist. I haven't come across anything in Mayer's The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques, or The Painter's Craft, that could be described as an error.
Virgil Elliott? He's the bloke that produces the type of "old master" paintings one would've glimpsed on a 1970s episode of Columbo or McMillan & Wife. I perused his book on the Internet Archive. Chock full of self-important, pseudo-intellectual twaddle, and risibly erroneous "demonstrations" of "The Flemish Technique"
Compliments of the season folks!
Posted
Virgil Elliott? He's the bloke that produces the type of "old master" paintings one would've glimpsed on a 1970s episode of Columbo or McMillan & Wife. I perused his book on the Internet Archive. Chock full of self-important, pseudo-intellectual twaddle, and risibly erroneous "demonstrations" of "The Flemish Technique"Brave!
Posted
Elliott's paintings are one thing - and yes, he's dogmatic. But his knowledge of techniques is sound, and reinforced by contacts with conservators at the University of Delaware, and with, e.g., experts from Holland - eg Jap Boon (I've probably misspelled that name). Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Mayer's book anymore: not quite sure why, I must have sold it at some point when in need of cash: not my best idea. So I can't point to specific examples in which research has moved on since the original publication - you've inspired me to get a new copy, so I can delve further.
Remember that the point of this forum is to share opinion and teach through discussion (including teaching ourselves): there are quite a few participants who won't know what the hell we're talking about, and have never tripped over a cobalt or Japan drier in their lives, nor stumbled over Mayer, O'Hanlon, or Elliott - there are those whom this sort of topic interests, and those to whom it's as beguiling as a plate of wilted broccoli - I'm not trying to top anyone's knowledge; and neither of us need be in competition over the experts we cite - I'm not necessarily as devoted a disciple of any of them as you might suppose, nor as harsh a critic (in most cases).
Your seasonal greetings returned, with an extra sprig of holly and a mince pie, and maybe we can get into the Flemish method into the New Year (because it wasn't to understand it that led me to Elliott's book, and I've forgotten what he had to say about it; our and his difficulty there is that we weren't around at the time....).
Edited
by Robert Jones, Napa
Posted
I have the Ray Smith book, on your recommendation, Robert.
My comment re bravura was with reference to the possibility of more fervent followers, if not the author himself may look in here. ;-)
I'm flitting about today having decided that the first clear day after about 4 weeks of being away, flu smitten or general household stuff getting in the way would be well spent getting back to the paints. But the light! Or lack of it.
I'm struggling with electric bulbs, how they managed with candlelight is amazing.
Given up now, playing Exhibition on Screen DVDs instead.
Posted
Ralph Mayer (whose book arrived today! I only ordered it yesterday.... incredible!) has joined the Great Studio in the Sky, so won't be looking in. Virgil Elliott might - I rather hope he doesn't, because he can be acerbic. I won't tip him off.... Nor will I defend his book or work, more than I have already; his paintings are EXTREMELY traditional, and his methods suit the market for portraits in the USA: they will last, in terms of technical construction; the are broadly fairly conventional - as I remember, he's not very fond of any painting from the period outside of pre-Impressionism; so I do understand why he so annoys Tom, and others who regard the Impressionists as the precursors of all modern painting. For all that, his advice is still worth reading, and I disagree with some of Tom's characterization of it; but then - that's what forums are for.
My apologies for dragging this thread way beyond the quite simple question that began it; I shall now shut up, and delve into the Ralph Mayer book - and all its 752 pages. That's the Christmas period taken care of - and I have the revised edition, whereas before I only had the original. So good comes out of disputation.
By the way, Norrette, I often paint by electric light, augmented by such light as comes in from outside: it's not ideal, but I think one does acclimatize to it - I was sort of pleased and sort of not by a recent comment from a visitor - " your paintings look much better in daylight ...": I THINK that was a compliment, it's just that I wouldn't swear to it. I do know they're a swine to photograph indoors, and I have to take them for a walk outside; in light that is, at the moment, guaranteed not to flatter.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2