Fugitives!

What do we really think of fugitive colours?  A recent download from this very site, featuring a couple of very good and interesting demonstrations from Caroline Gill and Lian Quan Zhen, nonetheless contained what to me is a real problem (perhaps it didn't help that the download crashed my computer, but I'm blaming Adobe pdf reader for that..).<div> </div><div>The first demo suggested the use of Rose Madder Genuine.  Now - I know people still use it, and still use genuine Alizarin Crimson too, but how many more times do we have to point out that these colours are fugitive?  What is Rose Madder Genuine doing being recommended in a tutorial?</div><div> </div><div>It occurs to me that people just don't care anything like so much as I do - or don't believe they're fugitive, despite frankly acres of evidence to that effect.  I might risk them in oil - but never again in watercolour, because they WILL fade - not might, not if you expose them to sunlight for too long, but WILL.  Madder colours like these are not lightfast.</div><div> </div><div>Doesn't mean you shouldn't use them if you want to, although there are plenty of substitutes now, but - again, maybe I'm just too pernickety - I don't understand why any art tutor would recommend their use, when we have Permanent Alizarin, Permanent Carmine, Quinacridone Violet, also known as Rose or Permanent Rose.  </div><div> </div><div>Trouble is, Rose Madder Genuine is an absolutely beautiful colour - there was another red, called Geranium Lake, which is also a beautiful colour, if anyone still makes it: and of course if you're working for illustration purposes, not for the display of your actual paintings, it doesn't matter at all.  But it does - doesn't it? - if you're painting for exhibition, for sale?  </div><div> </div><div>Is it, gentle reader, just me?  Or is this verging on the irresponsible?  </div>