| Author | Message | ||
  Robert |
I love this quote from handprint that follows and hope that any future discussions of resistance to abandonment of fugitive (non-lightfast) pigments such a genuine Alizarin Crimson or Opera take the element of business ethics into the equation: " But artistic preferences become a public concern as soon as artists receive payment for their work. Then it is no longer a question of "exercising artistic freedom," but a question of business ethics. Selling a painting that will fade within a few years, with no warning to the buyer of that fact, can be considered a form of fraud, pure and simple." | ||
marie |
I use Perylene Maroon (usually W/N, sometimes D/S) when I want a dark crimson and am not particularly concerned about chroma. I use D/S Carmine (benzimidazolone carmine) sometimes when I want something a little brighter. The more I use Perylene Maroon, the more I like it. I almost always have quinacridone rose on my palette, too. | ||
Robert |
Curious-- if you have heard the call re. the fugitive (nonlightfastness) nature of alizarin crimson, what do you use as a lightfast replacement. It would make an Useful list. I use Rembrandt (or Van Gogh)Permanent Red Violet (a quinacridone violet, PV19). | ||
marie |
I wholeheartedly agree with you and Bruce. Forty years ago watercolorists may not have had a choice about lightfastness in certain hues, but there is no excuse for using fugitive pigments today. It has occurred to me to attach a note to the back of my paintings about my use of lightfast pigments. I don't realistically expect artists to advertise the use of fugitive pigments, and so I am thinking about doing the opposite -- advertising the use of lightfast pigments. Maybe it will start a trend. | ||
Robert |
I was reading Handprint.com and I couldn't helop be amazed at how eloquently and persuasively Bruce MacElvoy expressed the issue of ethics in the use of lightfast pigments in watercolor paintings. Following is a ver batim except that, to me, is quite interesting. "Shouldn't painters have the right to use whatever materials they choose? Well, obviously! Paint with food dye on latex, if that is your pastime, and enjoy! But artistic preferences become a public concern as soon as artists receive payment for their work. Then it is no longer a question of "exercising artistic freedom," but a question of business ethics. Selling a painting that will fade within a few years, with no warning to the buyer of that fact, can be considered a form of fraud, pure and simple. Artists could easily advise buyers at the time of sale, "This painting [print] is made with one or more pigments that have been found by independent testing to fade after moderate exposure to light," and let buyers decide for themselves, at least forewarned they must mount and hang the work appropriately. Yet most artists who use impermanent pigments say nothing about it to their buyers. Why not? Because the artists deny there is any problem. This denial takes many forms, but the two excuses I've heard most often are I have never seen any problems myself, and the paints I use are lightfast enough. (Lightfast enough for what is never explained.) Usually, these excuses are strung together: I have never seen any problems, so the paints must be lightfast enough. The first claim is certainly naive, if not cynical (one year framed in the studio or gallery is not ten years on a buyer's wall, and you know that). The second is muddled thinking: see for example Jeanne Dobie's comments on rose madder genuine (NR9). In fact, I know a few watercolor painters who have developed the opinion that I'm not going to be intimidated by the lightfastness police, and one or two others who have told me flat out: once I sell the thing, it's not my worry. A few, candidly, feel they are not getting paid enough anyway for the labor they put in, so the buyer can have no complaints. And I wonder whether these artists are not the most honest, and speak for many others. Which brings me to the primary reason for my concern with this issue: continued use of fugitive pigments by some watercolor painters depresses the price all can command for a fine painting. It poisons market confidence in watercolors and reinforces the entrenched belief among informed buyers and professional curators that watercolor paintings will fade. Not just some paintings, or possibly will fade, or will fade after extreme exposure to light: they fade, dude. This prejudice, in turn, justifies the practice: paintings are gonna fade sooner or later anyway, so why not use whatever paints I want? Amazingly, despite common prejudice and beliefs, watercolors can be more permanent than oil paintings if the artist uses today's lightfast pigments and archival papers. I look forward to the day when a watercolor artist can command $2,000 rather than $200 for a superb full sheet painting, and when watercolors are considered the equal of oils or acrylics in the gallery and museum marketplace. That won't happen as long as talented, ambitious, otherwise responsible artists continue to assert that alizarin crimson or rose madder genuine are "lightfast enough" to clinch that sale." Entire link: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/pigmt6.html |
