| Author |
Message |
 
Kukana
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:39 pm: |  |
OOPs..I found it . Its Mameriblu Rose Lake. I will order it in my next order. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:37 pm: | |
I love WN scarlet lake. I think it a wonderful break fr0m Cad Red.
...But did someone mention another Lake that was worth trying...Was it Holbiens Rose Lake or Mameriblu or somethihg. I can't find it now. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Well, I bought Winsor Newton Scarlet Lake.
Seems to be a great color. Wouldn't think of it for a flamingo, though.
Bought it because of this lively discussion!
As far as watercolors, I loved them first because they are portable.
We are sailors and I can bag them up and paint anywhere... and do
often paint at our boat.
Now I would call them magical paints.
Jane |
Kukana
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
I can work in any medium.You name it, I can use it, teach it and sell it...I have in the past and will continue to experiment to some degree.
But MY medium is watercolours. I did not choose it, IT choose me! I think most artists feel that way about their medium too. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
I was an oil painter for years, tried watercolor and never looked back at the oils. I have no trouble selling them, and for GOOD prices. I have paintings in many corporations beside private homes. I t is a natural medium for me. I had only one painting fade ( used a color which I knew was fugitive, it hung in a gallery under strong lights and the fugitive color faded, I took it down, entered it in several shows and it got in everyone and won awards. I have never used that color again and I have know trouble with colors fading. I lived in Florida for several years and watercolors are not as popular as oils due to mold, but I still sold everything I painted. Acrylics are considered to be cheap paintings in that state, at least where I was. Oils turn color with age and the canvas in some climates like Florida turn brittle and tear, also mold. Art to me is supposed to be CREATIVE. Who makes up all of these rules anyway? Have any of you tried the NEW watercolor canvas by Fredrix? I just finished my first one and I loved it. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
"Some folks have said that you have to graduate up to watercolors..."
Bit of advice--forget what some others say (including me)--I could find plenty of people who would say focus on watercolor exclusively if you want to get good. In the end you need the clarity of vision for yourself to pursue what you want to do. This is essential to an artist's creative vision and the crucial thing is not that you follow other's paths but your own. And only your innermost self can direct that. If it's a love of watercolor that motivates you to paint, I think you have your answer. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Your calling should determine your direction...
Jane
That's what I was trying to say--Jane just put it much better--
Robert |
jandrle
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Rainbow...
a lot of this depends on who your target audience will be and how
you choose to market your work.
If you are aiming for high end galleries it would probably be prudent
to work in oils. But I believe that midrange buyers are very receptive
to watercolors and the subject matter they usually depict.
In the Washington Metropolitan area where I live watercolors are
very popular. I have never seen a larger population of watercolor
artists in the country.
I do very well selling my paintings here and find there is a market for
commissions as well.
Although I also paint in oils I prefer watercolor... and I believe that
often the subject of the painting dictates the medium you use to
execute it.
Your calling should determine your direction...
Jane |
rainbow
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 12:29 am: | |
I enjoy watercolor and will probably continue it for myself. The problem is, I've really wanted to do watercolor since before I began painting and have therefore played with tube acrylics and oils but worked mostly with watercolor. I'm just thinking it might be better for me to tip the balance in the other direction just now. Some folks have said that you have to graduate up to watercolors, more or less, anyway, so maybe I have just been thickheaded and tried to do it the other way. My watercolors are still my happy place so I don't think I can ever give them up completely. Hopefully, if I switch gears and work on developing my skills with the others, on top of improving my painting skills, I could eventually sell (if it comes to that) a few oils or acrylics to support my watercolor habit. I'm hooked on the message board and fond of all of you who contribute. Thanks for the concern and lively discussions. |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
I see what you are saying now, Rainbow. I thought you were "freaking out" about the talk of lack of lightfastness (which is not in fact true) of watercolors, but you were essentially effected by Dolerre's post that watercolors don't "sell" well. If that is giving you pause
I would say you are 100% right in considering abandoning watercolors. I think watercolor is an art form you feel you *have* to do rather than a form you choose because of the financial remuneration. I look at watercolor's relationship to art much like poetry's relationship to literature. The money is to be made in novels and screenplays, not poetry. But then some people are born poets just as some are "born" watercolorists. They can't fight it and "must" do it. |
rainbow
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Thank you for your encouragement but...first note I am not a professional artist and haven't decided yet if I want to take something I enjoy for me and turn it into a career. My experience with my "real" career to date has been that I probably need to rethink it. I am trying to learn to frame my own art so this may be less of an issue later and I do intend to be a better artist but it is very discouraging to think that I make a conscious effort to choose quality products to produce and frame my art but the buying public think it is less valuable and durable than art of other mediums. With acrylics and oils, I don't have to have a mat or glazing which thus far have added exponentially to my cost to produce. I am far from a master, though I intend to at least reach impressive, but what I paint now has value to me and the loved ones that I sometimes gift with it. At our art club show this week (there is no 3D work), about a third of all entries are watercolors. If I do decide I want to become, say, a part time professional artist, between a possible saturation of my local market with watercolors, and the expense to do quality work (materials and framing), am I setting myself up for beating my head against the proverbial brick wall? I don't make art to get rich. It is a healing, soothing, emotional outlet for me. Just the same, wouldn't we all like to have someone value our work enough to purchase it and, at least, break even? Do you think that the new watercolor canvases will help in this regard? Is part of the problem the whole a work on paper thing? |
jandrle
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
That statement was in response to a post...
Read down and you will infer from the post that that is exactly what
she is saying... |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
I doubt very seriously that discussion over wether the use of the handful of pigments among scores that are non-lightfast
Gosh, I meant "Whether the use of the handful of pigments that are not lightfast among the scores that are lightfast is what's behind this..." Bad typo--very sorry.
Here's the point, again. Most watercolors--almost all- are lightfast. So any angst is misplaced unless you choose Opera, Aliz Crimson, Aueroin, Rose Madder Genuine or the Holbein Permanent Yellows (and possibly a few others). |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
It makes me feel very sad to think that a discussion like this would
cause you to abandon watercolors professionally...
I doubt very seriously that discussion over wether the use of the handful of pigments among scores that are non-lightfast is what is behind this, unless there is a misunderstanding. Watercolors are lightfast (with a few exceptions). Such a discussion could not cause one to abandon their art. So don't feel bad or guilty. |
garydoc
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
OOPS! that's "commemorative" |
garydoc
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
I have to add my 2 cents in to this discussion. Altho' a "newbie" to w/c, I have in the past (30 years ago) done calligraphic work professionally, and in my early and naive ingnorance, did some pieces using felt-tips and metallic inks for embellishment.
I wish I could see the state of some of those pieces today, but I wouldn't bet a buck on them looking anything like I originally created.
Since these were "commemerative" pieces designed to last a full lifetime, as well as works of art, I squirm in embarassment over the issue of fugitive colors in artwork. Anyone who fails to care about the durability of a piece of "original" art and fails to inform the consumer/purchaser (and this includes "photoreproduction art quality pieces") could be considered negligent, and possibly could be creating a tort (hate to bring THAT up!)
(how does that stir the pot?) |
jandrle
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
It makes me feel very sad to think that a discussion like this would
cause you to abandon watercolors professionally...
They are truly magical paints.
There are enough solid paints out there that you can build a great
and safe palette... and feel confident that what you are creating and
selling is durable for the long haul.
No one knows whose paintings will be around and treasured for
what amount of time... it would be a shame to determine your
medium based on that.
I have a watercolor that my mother did in college. I don't know if it
has faded or not. I suspect that it might have... because the foliage is
blue...
It hung in our home while I was growing up, in my room later, after I
left for college.
She was in college during the war (II) and told me that it was
impossible to get art supplies... there was a shortage of everything.
They painted and drew on anything they could get, the back of
wallpaper even... and she loved the art she created during that
period of her life. If it hadn't survived physically, it would have been
with her always...
We were all proud of what she hung in our home because she
created it.
*This is not an endorsement for using inferior materials...
Jane |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
I seem to be spending a small fortune in watercolor supplies but given several conversations, etc. of late, I am considering switching to acrylics exclusively,
Rainbow--by "converstaions" are you referring to this thread re. lightfastness. Almost all watercolors are totally lightfast these days (if you avoid Holbein)--only a few exceptions--like Opera, Alizarin Crimson (both of which have lightfast alternatives in PV-19-quinacridone violet), and genuine Aurolein, which has several lightfast alternatives, including Winsor Lemon. |
rainbow
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
I seem to be spending a small fortune in watercolor supplies but given several conversations, etc. of late, I am considering switching to acrylics exclusively, and maybe even oils (which I have avoided due to the turps/etc. issue but I have heard of some great alternatives for cleanup.)I enjoy watercolors but maybe I will keep them for my enjoyment only or family. |
John Preston
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
Interesting way of measuring lightfastness. I would guess home lighting conditions are often less harsh than museum conditions. For example, it's overcast outside right now, and I haven't turned on any lights (other than in my studio) to illuminate paintings throughout my house (unfortunately there aren't daily visitors to see my work!!) |
Robert
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Lightfastness seems to not actually have been defined in any of these discussions. I just came across this interesting standard for lightfastness that is very specific (good for 150 years under museum lighting)on the Rembrandt watercolor webpage chart. Almost all of their colors are rated maximum lightfastness:
"Lightfastness
+++ = highest degree of lightfastness (78 colours, lightfast for a minimum of 150 years under museum lighting, ASTM class I). ++ = good lightfastness (2 colours, lightfast for a minimum of 75 years under museum lighting, ASTM class II). The lightfastness of all colours has been tested in accordance with ASTM standard D4303 and D5067." |
Robert
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Jane--
Here's part of what you wrote a while back in response to my post:
"This is supposed to be a safe place to ask
questions and learn, not a place to be
chastised for asking the "wrong" question...
Maybe it is just what I am hearing?"
I just now read this and want to apologize and clarify. Evidently my writing doesn't display correctly my friendly attitude. I think I get very intense when discussing items of interest but didn't intend to sound anything but helpful and supportive. I think when writing I get carried away (and I don't proof read). Sorry if anything I've said was taken personally--it wasn't inteded that way at all. I certainly value your contributions, as I do everyone's.
Robert |
John Preston
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Rainbow has some points there...I'm not certain, but I think pigments bound in a film of linseed oil are SOMEWHAT shielded from the ravages of UV. However, I disagree that lightfastness is the MAIN issue driving price differentials between mediums. Oils just LOOK more "finished" than watercolors and people find it easier to assign value to quantity of labor than quality. Granted, there were some watercolors in 19th century England (and certainly today) with a high degree of "finish" and a lot of watercolorists will jump in here and argue that high degree of finish counters the medium's particular charm. But, people just think there's more work in an oil...often there is. But there's no less ART in a watercolor that's well conceived and executed. With proper framing and display there's not a big difference in longevity (though I guess you can't reline a watercolor...) Anyway, OUR task is to educate the non artist to that "quality" issue. Otherwise, fine points about lightfastness will not overcome the perception that an oil has more work in it and is therefore more valuable. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
You make good points Rainbow. Drollere is saying that the stigma of watercolor is due its reputation for fading -- specifically. Why then shouldn't watercolor artists use lightfast paint and proudly proclaim the lightfastness of their medium, rather than intentionally use fugitive paints and then "warn' the clients of the future fade--thus further unnecessarily religating watercolors to the place of art that is not taken seriously. That would go far to establish w/c much deserved spot among the media that are taken seriously in the marketplace. We have the lightfast pigments finally--let's use them. |
rainbow
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
Why is the concern for lightfastness deemed to be a watercolor concern only? Are there no fugitive colors in oils, pastels, etc.? Are the pigments not the same or does the vehicle make such a tremendous difference?
When I sell a piece, I intend to advise the purchaser that I have taken the precaution of framing my art with acid free materials and other methods intended to extend its life. Further it is recommended that the purchaser place consideration on the display location of the piece. ANY art (not a magazine photo of the latest hottie but fine art or print thereof) or treasured photographs should be located in an area where it will not be exposed to direct light (natural or otherwise) or humidity with dust cover intact to protect the piece from unnecessary harm. I think this is similar to what I've seen posted on this thread elsewhere--I've tried to locate it but haven't yet. That said, why should the public trust the longevity of self-printed photographs that have been available for what, less than 20 years, but discount the value of an art form that has existed for over a hundred? I think we also have to give some responsibility to the consumer. My ringbearer found a small fortune (IF they had been mint) in his dad's baseball card collection but they were creased and tattered in a milk crate in the outbuilding. Meanwhile my cousin grew up unable to play with the majority of her dolls because her mother considered them investments to be kept in the box in mint condition. Do I buy art for investment purposes or because the piece speaks to me? I'd rather have a moving piece that may not outlast me than a hideous something that will fetch my grandchildren millions. As a consumer, that is my decision. If I choose to take the hideous monstrosity and hang it in the basement, so be it. As artists we have a responsibility to educate and to create work (if it is for sale) that honors the profession, but it isn't one sided. Maybe we should make our collectors take an art IQ and likelihood to sue me survey before we take the money. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Drollere--
Thanks for the analysis. Here's a philosophical question--If an artist elects to use fugitive pigments and clearly labels the painting as "MAY fade" or "keep out of sunlight--lightfastness is an issue" or some such warning, does this not perpetuate the very generalization about watercolors you are bemoaning. If a pro willingly uses fugitives and announces such is not this perpetuating the notion that "watercolors fade" and ultimitaely forcing the ill informed to generalize that all watercolors fade. Of course not to say anything is worse because dishonest. Avoidance of fugitive materials would be the only justifiable solution, it seems to me. Thus for one pro to not really care about the issue of lightfastness indirectly hurts us the entire watercolor community.
Robert--who never thought about becoming a member of the lightfastness police until I bought 8 tubes of Holbein Perm. Yellow only to find them made of PY55 (a diarylide) which is said by Wilcox to "fade drastically." Now the red lights are on. |
drollere
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
this is a very interesting thread as it displays all sides of several interrelated issues, with some sides taken to extremes.
my basic concern lightfastness in watercolor paintings is that watercolors are held cheap, sold cheap, spurned by museums and critics and infrequently mounted in museum or gallery shows because it is widely believed they fade.
talented artist, fine painting, but it will fade, so here's my five dollars, and i'll throw it out when it's gray.
at the same time, people who have a "whip 'em with a garden hose" mentality toward those who have a free spirit, crushed berries, tie dyed mentality need to turn on, tune in and drop out of the lightfastness police.
to me the fundamental issue, when everything else is cleared away, is balance. it's not lightfastness or free expression or visual impact but whether watercolors will remain the underpaid medium because painters won't balance visual excitement with other considerations. i may be wrong, but i believe the market revenues of all are depressed by those few who simply don't care, or don't consider, the consequences of the materials they are using.
is that too complex for painter to think about? well, thoughtlessness tends to feed ignorance. for example: this thread reflects a lot of "local color literalism," the idea that you need a raging pink paint for a raging pink flamingo. this strikes me as a beginner's approach to the problem.
a skilled artist knows that color intensity can be easily confused by the naive eye with color luminance, and that one way to make an orange or magenta color appear more lustrous is to be sure to paint it at the optimal dilution and against a very dark background, and to model the colors to represent high illumination on the flamingo. the effect can be enough to let you choose a "safer" paint and still get the color impact you want.
yes, chocolate is a wonderful indulgence, but we always eat it with complete awareness that it is chocolate. fugitive paints are more like high fructose corn sweeteners -- the ingredients we don't consciously choose. if artists would balance their love of fugitive color with a disclosure at the time of sale that they've used impermanent materials, then the market can adjust choices and prices accordingly.
yes, lightfastness can be beaten to death, but what's really being hammered are the lame excuses, "golly, i didn't know" or "gee, i've never seen it fade" or "hey, nobody complained to me about it." (that's because the buyer's complaint, and your lame excuses, are already factored into the price.)
kukana seems to do everything with some thought, care, attention to end use, and balance between available materials, artistic purpose, fair business practices and intended end use. she won't allow for indulgences that she thinks may defeat her long term goals, whether you agree with those goals or not. she's a pro.
the rest can paint for their own pleasure. |
rainbow
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:23 am: | |
Because this issue so frequently shows up on this message board, when I decided to "graduate" from Cotman and Academie to "professional" grade paints, I made an earnest effort to check the lightfastness before I buy. Since I consider myself a beginner, I figure I cannot miss what I've never had but somedays I think I would love to pulverize some "poke berries" or process some black walnut hulls and shells and have at it as my ancestors would have. Alas,I paint for me with the hope that someone will enjoy it, and maybe, just maybe, someday someone will buy something so I can go buy more supplies!
BTW, Kukana, I think that the hottest colors are fugitive for the same reason that chocolate tends to be high in calories and isn't considered a food group nutritionally vital to survival. It allows us to choose our own little "rebellions", thumb our noses, and enjoy life. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
I'll buy some tomorrow...I love their Inidan Yellow and Green blue,.... (or is is blue green?) |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Maimeriblu Rose Lake--Absolutely lightfast (BTW) and hot and shocking (though only about 95% as much as opera and warmer in hue than opera). |
Kukana
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
Ok, so what do ya'll use when you want a really hot hot vivid, in-your-face, knock you naked pink! I am so open to new options.
Also a question...Why are all the hottest colors fugitive? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Wow - this is almost like instant messaging! Please don't feel you are wasting your time -it's an important discussion, and so often it's hard to find someone to discuss these things with. Since I am a relatively new artist, I think I feel a little self-conscious about taking myself too seriously. However, lots of my pictures have been framed (by my husband) and are all over my house. When I paint a better one, I simply switch out the frame. When I paint a worse one, I toss it in the pile of rejects. I suppose it may happen that I decide to go beyond just participating at my local art league, but I am not there yet. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Don't be frustrated, Robert. You make excellent points that are absolutely undisputable. Even though I think Opera would make beautiful petunias, I don't use it because of the lightfastness issue. I live in Florida, and there is a lot of sun down here! When I first started painting, I was lucky enough to find handprint and took its lessons to heart. I use mainly Daniel Smith watercolors, with a few Maimeri Blu. The color that I see used all the time, in spite of its fugitive reputation, is not Opera, but Alizarin Crimson, which seems to me to be easier to live without than Opera, given Opera's unique intensity. |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
. I believe that most of us do it for our own pleasure, for the actual process of learning technique, of forming a vision and seeing it realized.
I understand this and would agree. If you don't really care about the painting once its done because it's a learning thing, then it doesn;t really matter what the pigment longevity is. But then is that the end of painting? Aren;t they meant to be hung? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don;t actors practice acting to be seen acting and musicians practice music to be heard. Sure there's a joy in simply playing (or painting) but to assert that there is no purpose beyond that, that aret is to be produced and then discarded is nonsense. You are speaking of practice art or learner's art. But what about when you've done 200-300 paintings. At some point you will want to hang something. To put it another way, all of these frame shops and framing suppliers aren;t going oput of business. Somebody's framing art. If that is so, should the artist be confident that their materials will no fade unnecessarily rapidly?
Never mind --have fun. There are more useful things to do with my time than have to persuade people who are defending the indefensible. |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
I never think that my work will be passed down through the ages - not possible.
You'd be surprisded how much friends and relatives might value your work.
To be frank, I am beginning to see the light. Companys like Holbein (the worst offender) don't really care about making their colors lightfast as long as they are eye catching. Why? Becasue enough artists don't really see lightfastness as an issue --so why not sell fugitive pigments.
(Throwing up my hands in disbelief and frustration),
Robert |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Hi everyone. I have been reading this discussion almost daily and want to thank all participants for such a lively dialog. I have been painting watercolors for two years, and I differ with Robert about why I, and most of the people I have met in classes etc, paint. I believe that most of us do it for our own pleasure, for the actual process of learning technique, of forming a vision and seeing it realized. The finished product is not really that important to me, other than as a springboard for the next challenge. I have sold several pieces, but that was never in my mind when I began, and is still way down the list of goals. I still consider myself an amateur, I don't have university or art school training, I never think that my work will be passed down through the ages - not possible. After all, I have painted dozens of pictures already and the world cannot save them all. On the main topic of this thread, I don't think Opera would do too well for flamingos, I think of it as perfect for petunias! |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Kukana: "I don't think I am irresponsible for using it. I use it and sell it with full knowledge and disclosure. But I have no illusions of granduar that my work will still be savored after 30 years. "
You are an exception to the way most employ watercolors. Most of the consumers of watercolor paint are amateurs who want to paint pictures that their friends and relatives can hang for decades. And maybe they can sell a few along the way at shows or galleries. The assumption is that if someone pays a few hundred dollars for original art, they intended it to last on their walls. So rather than continusously debate "your" use in repro art (a debate that kind of gums up the real issue) lets focus on whether people doing original (not photorepro) art *intended* to outlive them should be done with fugitive paint. [Another issue is why does Holbein sell so much paint that tunrs out to be fugitive?] Does anyone besides me also find it a bit offensive that Kukana claims it is having delusions of grandeur to expect your art to last. Isn;t that what art is about for most people, to create paintings that people will want to hand and pass on to their descendants. There's not delusion of granduer in this. Many peoplehave art in their homes painted by friends and relatives or bought at shows and these hand for decades and maybe will continue to hang for much longer. I feel that Kukana is applying the values of a pop-commercial artist to essentially a fine art forum. That's fine, but it isn;t really what the most people relate to and the concerns --such as the use of fugitive paints--often diverge. Even handprint says it is perfectly justifiable for a commerical sartist to use fugitive pigments becasue the art is to be photo reproduced--a totally different animal. As far as warning people that the paintings may fade--good for you. |
Robert
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
So I learned ( posted in another thread ) that the yellow I'm wild about is found to be fugitive by Wilcox.
It is Holbein's Pemanent Yellow Light and their site rates it 2 stars out of three (which is what most of the paints get) for lightfastness.
It IS called "permanent." Tom Lynch uses it. So should one use it as a main yellow or go back to the cadmiums? I seem to be in a similar pickle as the opera delimma. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Yes, it's Hawaiian. My middle name is Kukana'kamelani. I am from the island of O'ahu.
I understand that pre print is not an issue but I use it for my originals....with obvious success. I just don't have any problem with it. I've never had a complaint or return.
You're right Jane, White, Which I do not use and all these fugitive colors do bring about a lively discussion. Personally I think we all learn a lot from them. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
OPERA PINK and WHITE seem to bring out
the strong opinions, don't they?
I, personally, am sorry I mentioned it since I
have never painted a flamingo in my life... |
Robert
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
...should be Kukana--sorry. BTW, is this Hawaiian? I love it!!! |
Robert
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
My retail lines, which clearly say on the back, "Some colors may fade in sunlight" sold over 1 million dollars last year..
Kakuna--I would think that reproductions made with opera would hold up just fine. The preproduction inks are the issue, not the original color. I don't think, personally, you are being irresponsible at all. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
That should stir the pot, eh? |
Kukana
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
I don't rationalize that Holbein rates it as fugitive. I accept their testing. I simply choose to use it anyway. Why do they sell it if no one is supose to use it? I refuse to limit myself to only the "highest" lightfast paints.
I don't think I am irresponsible for using it. I use it and sell it with full knowledge and disclosure. But I have no illusions of granduar that my work will still be savored after 30 years. My retail lines, which clearly say on the back, "Some colors may fade in sunlight" sold over 1 million dollars last year and my originals pushed 100K. Are all those who purchsed my work to be lumped together as irresponsible too?
Why do you not call the manufacturers irresponsible for selling it. Im not picking a fight here. Im just curious why you're not slamming them. Do you consider Holbein as well as American Journey WS, DS, DaVinci, etc who all have fugitive paints to be a irresponsible art paint manufacturer?
By the way...I use exactly the same inks in reproduction as my Mary Englebright, Laurel Burch, Susan Branch, and everyone else who uses four color process to print their art. All printed art fades. I've never seen any of them have the disclosure I have. So I guess I am pretty responsible by comparison. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Re. Fading--
Paintings are expected to last for decades, centuries. Just because a pignment that is acknowledged as fugitive by the manufacturer
(and you know they'd do anything short of lying to avoid this label) hasn't faded in the last few months or three or four years doesn't mean that thirty years from now it won't have faded. Lightfastness tests are extreme, but they reflect what **will** (not **may**, but **will** ) happen much more slowly
to a fugitive pigment in a home setting. I am rather frustrated that supposedly responsible artists in this thread are trying to self-servingly rationalize away the FACT that Holbein rates Opea as FUGITIVE. Period. |
Matt
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Re. The original question--what tube color is dead on flamingo pink.
Answer--Holbein Scarlet Lake. Out of the tube it is **dead on** shocking electric flamingo pink. It is in no way similar to other brand's scarlet lake. The on-line color swathces are miles from the actual tube color. Opera is a blue pink and is not a flamingo pink. |
John Preston
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Re: This fading thing...to attempt to put it all on a more scientific footing and account for why some people don't see Opera and such fade appreciably...I've read that UV light is in the 220-400 nanometer range and that above 400 it becomes part of the visible spectrum and is not(or not as) harmful to eyes, skin, pigments, dyes, etc. Ordinary glass filters to 330 nanos and Acrylic glazing filters to 340 nanos...or about 80 to 85% of UV respectively. And you can purchase special glazings which go to 95%. Some people have fancy double pane insulated windows with exotic gases in them that are advertised as preventing your carpets and upholstery from fading. These are just some of the factors which may explain why Kukana's paintings haven't faded to her notice. So I still feel if you need a particular color because of it's hue or granulation or liftability, then there are ways to work around them. After all, with enough time every pigment is going to fade so they are all fugitive in the final analysis. So go to your studio and make something BEAUTIFUL...if it happens to be durable as well, that's gravy. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
Is that anger I hear?
I honestly asked the question because I
wanted to know the fact.
Where is all the rest coming from?
I wasn't defending anything...
This is supposed to be a safe place to ask
questions and learn, not a place to be
chastised for asking the "wrong" question...
Maybe it is just what I am hearing?
Jane |
Robert
| | Posted on Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
"Is a fugitive color less fugititive when mixed with a non-fugitive color?"
Here's my take:
Absloutely not--
Fpr instance, if you mix opera and cobalt blue and get a bright violet, in time, as the opera fades you should expect to get a bluer and bluer , duller , grayer violet. Some have metioned they use fugitives with impunity but that seems specious. What they are saying really is that a) they just don't give a damn about he longevity of their art -- they're in good company--Mondrain and J.M.W. Turner made such comments or b) they don't really believe the colors fade out of direct sunlight in which the lightfastness tests were made--but paintings get UV light in a room with indirect sunlight or any sunlight at all, even filtered. The fading may take 15 years and not 15 days but it will occur. I have prints that have totally fades and they are in a room with no direct sunlight, but they've been there for over 10 years. So when mixing a fugitive and a non-fugitive imagine mixing something like davy's gray with the non fugitive and that's what it will eventually end up looking like. I doubt very seriously if paintings painting with fugitive colors will have retained their brilliance at all in 50 years. But then that may not be an issue for you. It would be for me if I were paying hard earned cash, though, for your original (not photoreproduced) art. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
When I went to the workshop I was clear about
where I wanted to grow.
First I wanted to work on my point of view,
second I wanted to make the paint look
interesting.
I was frustrated with the work I was doing... felt
like a production artist, not a painter...
The washes sure took care of the second.
Painting has never been more fun. Or maybe
really fun for the first time!
The first is more elusive... but coming along
too.
The wonderful thing about the workshop was
that she wanted to hear what everyone wanted
to take away and tried to address that.
Question... is a fugitive color less fugitive
when mixed with a non fugitive color?
I guess when I use one mixed with another
color I felt I didn't need to worry as much as I
would using a pure color. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Friday, May 7, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Not me... I just slather paint on onall over the place, slightly avoiding the the subject area ...then I tip and roll the paper to let it run across. As is starts to dry, I take a dryer,very thirsty brush and lift out the whitest areas. It works for me. The subject area is bathed in color and creates a wonderful base for what ever I paint on top...And Im not shy with the paint in the wash...I slap it on! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, May 7, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
John preston wrote
Sure, it's commendable to warn your patrons and I am very grateful for all of Handprint's meticulous research, but I think we over-worry this stuff. You can use Opera, Aureolin and Rose Madder Genuine if you work around the limitations.
In response:
The following was lifted from another thread--posting by dolliere -2002
why leave watercolors in the sun if no one would do that? because it *accelerates* the process that happens anyway, though more slowly, under less intense light over longer periods of time. sunlight, incandescent light, halogen light -- they all add up. and i know from experience that it is annoyingly easy to hang art where early, late or seasonal sunlight can shine directly on it, something you don't realize because you're habitually not in that room at that time of day, or because you put the painting up in summer and the winter sun comes from an entirely different angle. and many collectors simply run out of "safe" wall space because they own so many paintings. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Friday, May 7, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
In the workshop she taught us to paint slightly over the edges... it
creates sort of an outline effect...
www.carol-carter.com
She paints large... huge even. You get hard edges and soft
washes. Because the elements are so large and stylized... I
think that is a word I would use... the effect is startling.
And the contrast is amazing, the darks to lights in the washes. She
allows herself about 20 minutes to work a wash area. The whole
effect is done in that one wash.
It is so much fun to work this way. The biggest problem I have had is
visualizing the colors I want to use, and how they will work when they
begin to merge. I just sort of wing it and keep my fingers crossed.
Jane |
Robert
| | Posted on Friday, May 7, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
I love the way the backround washes into my subject matter giving it a real cohesive look
You paint the wet background into the main subject? I wish to learn the technique of painting the background first and having it wash into the subject seamlessly--how is it done?
Help. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
I love doing the background first on my fine art. I love the way the backround washes into my subject matter giving it a real cohesive look |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Re. Carol Carter teaching to paint the background first...
Wow--this is the sort of discussion I love. Assuming I paint in my background first as suggested, I am creating a "halo" of background around my main subject, correct? When the background dries I will have a hard edge around my subject. How do you overcome that visual blight? It's not a rhetorical question. Enquiring minds want to know. |
sarita
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Went on handprint.com and looked up visual compliments for the flamingo pink combo I'm using.
Did a couple of test swatches and by surrounding
the flamigo pink with phtalo turquoise and other greens - really made the difference. Pyrrole orange has a beautiful salmon pink tone in a wash
so I think I'll just keep tweaking my original
colors. And I will definitely stay away from
the opera. Thanks all. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
An aside... not to change the subject...
In the Carol Carter workshop I took in November, she stressed
doing the background first. She pointed out that there was nothing
worse than creating a wonderful subject then blowing it with a failed
background.
I just did that... at least I am still struggling with it. Normally I would
have followed her advice.
When using local color it is easier because you know what color you
will use and pretty much how it will work... but when using multiple
colors in washes and pretty much keeping your fingers crossed in
the outcome it is a pretty good rule to follow. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
I think the reason Kukana's painting hasn't faded is because it's hung in a reasonable location...John Preston
Yes John, you are right. I recall taking a w/s from Mel Stabin OCT '02 and he used opera in his florals. Also Dan Burt uses it and a few others I am aware of. It really looks great when used judiciously. Perhaps most people don't hang their paintings where they catch direct sun. Or maybe the opera fades and dulls of the years but it is not noticed becasue it is a gradual process(my theory). |
John Preston
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
I think the reason Kukana's painting hasn't faded is because it's hung in a reasonable location. If it has glass or plexi gazing, that will filter out an additional amount of UV radiation. All these lightfastness tests involve taping things to a south window or zapping them with xenon strobelights or other things we would NEVER do to a painting. Sure, it's commendable to warn your patrons and I am very grateful for all of Handprint's meticulous research, but I think we over-worry this stuff. You can use Opera, Aureolin and Rose Madder Genuine if you work around the limitations. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
correction--Kakuna (not kahuna--typo below, sorry).
Clarification for the original poster--my point against opera was not its lightfastness per se, but its hue--it is so much on the violet side that wne mixed with a yellow to create flamingo pink it will dull. I think the single best pigment that apporximates flamingo is Holbeins Scarlet Lake. The best lightfast pigment to represent a bluer shocking hot pink along the lines of opera (but still much less violet) is the red shade of quinacridone rose (Maimeriblu Rose Lake). I've used all of the pigments under disussion in Februaury on a painting trip to Hawaii. |
Robert
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
To quote Bruce McElvoy again concerning opera:
" it should not be used professionally for anything other than photoreproduction artwork. "
This seems to correspond with your use quite well, Kahuna. I don't think there is any debate over whether opera is fugitive. Holbein's website gives it a one star lightfastness rating, the lowest possible. The facts are the facts. That shouldn't preclude anyone from using it if they like it. It's always up to the artist. But it's good to know the scientific realities. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
You're right, I am enjoying this thread least I confuse anyone new to watercolors and get them started in a bad habit!!
Yes, I consider myself a pro in every sense of the word when it comes to my art and I use the fugitive Opera simply for two reasons.
One, in my commercial lines, I do not rely on selling originals. I tell everyone about the opera when I do. Interesting though, I have the original piece, "She Who Loves the Lord" framed and hanginng in my home. Its background is solid opera. I have had it up on the wall for three years now in a spot that gets filtered morning sun and it is just as pink and vibrant as the day I painted it.
Two, Opera Pink is the only pink I have found that I can paint with that once through the reproduction process, gives me the brilliant hot pink I desire in the finished print. I have all the other substites Bruce mentions in Handprints and use them all with some success in my fine art originals but not when I take it to print...
Believe me I've tried. I have over 160 different pieces in print right now and Opera is the only one that reads Hot Pink when printed in four color process. So in my particular application I stick to Holbeins Opera.Its hard to mess with success.
Also interesting, I have never had one complaint from a client and they all know where to find me as my name and contact is on the back of each original.
(I wonder if it has something to do with the paper I use??? I use a rather unconventional stuff...Strathmore Aquarius II is my paper of choice. I believe it is partiaclly synthetic paper...fiberglass! Anyway, I've been usng it for years and all my commercial art is painted on it )
All right folks..Take your best shot..you can rip into me now!!!!(I'm tough and it makes for a lively discussion!) |
sarita
| | Posted on Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Thanks all for your suggestions on the "flamingo pinks". I will defintely try your color combos.
When and if I ever finish the painting(I have alot of unfinished pieces) I'll post it for your comments. Seems I always start a painting with such excitement, making every brush stroke count and then I hit a wall. Its usually the background. I really am enjoying this discussion board. I know I'm not alone in my artistic journey. Thanks again. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Kukana is going to love this thread... |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Here's what Handprint says about opera:
Finally, Holbein opera is a much more intense bluish pink hue (chroma of 72), a fascinating and effective floral color, but especially fugitive because a substantial amount of triarylcarbonium violet (PV10) has been added; it should not be used professionally for anything other than photoreproduction artwork. — PR122 is my preference for the "primary" magenta paint for color point 5 of the color wheel. Its obvious attraction is that it produces the brightest possible mixed violets from red blues such as ultramarine or cobalt blue. Unfortunately, it leans so far toward blue that it produces rather dull brown or tan mixtures with orange or yellow paints, but for botanical painters the range of colors it mixes with sap green may be really attractive. More versatile choices for a "cool red" in a working palette are quinacridone rose (PV19), a somewhat redder color that produces slightly less saturated violets but fully saturated warm mixtures;
And here's what handprint says about Rose Lake (as well as a similar paint made by Daniel Smith):
RED. This shade has an average hue angle of 27 and a value range of 55 (it's warmer and darker than the "rose" shade). There are fewer paints available in this hue, but because this is warmer than the rose hue, it is an interesting choice as a "cool" red in a limited or split "primary" palette. M. Graham quinacridone rose is the most intense and strongest mixing of the red shades, and relatively less active in wet applications. Both Maimeri and Daniel Smith offer the "red" hue (labeled "rose lake" by Maimeri) with similar color attributes to anthraquinoid red (PR177) but better lightfastness.
My comment:
I have some rose lake and just made a brilliant flamingo color with it and Holbein Perm. Yellow Deep.
You might try glazing over viridian for shadows. |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
For the orange to mix with it I would use Holbein's Permanent Yellow Deep. You will not lose any intensity using this to "orange-up" the hot pink. Holbein's scarlet lake is a shockingly electric orange red and it mized with opera or Maimeriblu rose lake would make the color scream flamingo. |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Caution - Holbein's Opera is fugitive.
A permanent hot pink that will work is Maimeriblu's Rose Lake. |
jandrle
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
opera pink and indian yellow
screaming pink.
add a blue, dark to shadow. Depends on how
local you want the color to be. Add the
compliment if you just want to darken it... I
would lean toward purple though, muted.
Just my thought... |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 3, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
What colors would you recommend for mixing/glazing
to get that beautiful pinkish orange hue on flamingos? I've tried a number of combos(Qu. Rose and pyrolle orange and Qu. Gold but just can't achieve the brillance or depth of color.
Maybe there is a mfg. who makes a perfect color.
Also what color would you use for the shaded side of this bird. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks. |
|
