| Author | Message | ||
  Lloyd English |
This is a bit late, answering a 2001 posting, but... ASTM is comprised of volunteers, most of whom are paid by employers. Yes this includes some manufacturers, but surprisingly few. There are a lot of government people, university people, end-users, and more, heavily weighted on the research end. It is a dynamic group, since an ASTM recommendation may only stand five years without re-examination. If the responsible committee does not re-examine the standard, it is deleted. The process is a concensus one -- in other words, a single knowledgeable objection can hold up a proposed standard or standard change until modifications suit all. This prevents committees from being "loaded" by one segment of the interest group; no vote is ever by majority. Conversely, there are always unreasonable jerks in any group, so there are rarely-used provisions to override an objection that has been leveled three times (if I remember right)and it requires the consent of the committee at large. The ASTM structure is a three-tiered one, and the process is more complex than can be explained here. I used to be an ASTM member on an engineering topic and can assure you that no special-interest group sways the standards committees. In fact, I have been surprised at the topics that impact various industry segments that have no industry representation at all. Either they are unaware or do not want to pay for time and travel. ASTM meets twice a year. By the way -- anyone can volunteer to join and participate in any committee. There are no dues, and the only expense is travel to the meetings. Even if one only makes one meeting every 12 to 18 months, a lot is accomplished by mail. For someone closely interested in a topic, such as pigments, it could be interesting and worthwhile. There is also a "friend of the committee" status, which allows for ex-officio participation. | ||
Linda |
Well, I just can't keep a good thing to myself. I want everyone to know, so... (on the subject of paints, properties, brands:) This subject is of peculiar interest to me. When quality can vary so widely, why should we be ignorant? It's the same with white bread vs. 100% whole wheat. Alone, one sustains life, and with the other, you die, horribly. How do you know how to choose? The Wilcox book was my first study, and alerted me to the problems we face as artists finding quality materials. What if you become the next Cezanne? Will people be able to tell a few years from now? drollere is right, we must test these materials for ourselves! Who comprises the ASTM? Who pays them? Manufacturers? Yet who can personally afford to purchase every single paint for these tests? If one cannot do all the tests personally, the next best thing is vicarious knowledge, experienced others sharing their findings. Yes, that's why we are here. This artist community online is invaluable to humanity. Thank you, Cheap Joes, for having the only thing like this I've found yet, for allowing the unexpected to arise, and what a blessing! We can share with each other the gems we've found, and here's a beauty for you: Handprint.com. Not only does this author conduct all the tests we are looking for, there are a few more tests made you didn't know we needed! And nowhere, in all my studies which are extensive, have I found such a wealth of information on watercolors, all in one package. This site is magnificent! I can't even begin to imagine what work it took to put it all together. Knowledge is power. Handprint.com is the place to find it, regarding watercolor. There's way more information than just watercolor, which I haven't yet dipped into, because I'm still trying to gather all the watercolor information! Kudos for drollere, whom I believe to be the author of this website of excellence -- handprint.com! You have contributed so much, given so magnanimously of yourself for all of humanity. I hope, dearly hope that what you have done can be passed on and maintained for the future generations. I am willing to help with my effort. You are a visionary in my eyes. We are extremely fortunate to have you visit this artist community from time to time. Perhaps art forever, but certainly the world of watercolor will never be the same because of you, drollere. You are most appreciated! | ||
Linda |
So, the ASTM has charted some standards. We all know it's not nearly enough, what about transparency, activity of the pigment, granulation rates? Who's watching the ASTM? Manufacturers? What can we do to improve standards? How do we participate? Informed choices are the beginning of money spent in the correct places (the manufacturers who are WITH us, not just out to make a buck). Not everyone has the money to buy a tube of paint just to see if it will pass one's personal tests. Any ideas on what we can do to improve things for ourselves and our fellows? How can we help? | ||
feather |
Thanks Cheap Joe's for posting the color index numbers and ingredients for your "American Journey" brand watercolor paints in your 2001 catalog! feather | ||
MCKR |
I posted this message on the Ideas for 2001 Catalog site and thought I'd try it here, too. Does anyone have a comment? "Why don't you (CJAS) include the Color Index Names with all brands of watercolor paints? (They did for the Mamieriblu paints in the Summer catalog.) I think this would make it much easier to know if I'm trying a new color or just a new name for an old color." | ||
apiper |
I agree. After reading The Wilcox Guide to the Best Watercolor Paints I have become very selective about which paints I use. I am no longer brand loyal, rather I buy what paints are rated best. I understand a new Wilcox guide is being printed as I speak (oophs, as I write). This is an excellent reference book and every serious artist should read it! | ||
MCKR |
Thank you, apiper. My experience exactly. With Color Index Names and the Wilcox guide I can select the right/best paint AT THE RIGHT PRICE. It seems a no-brainer to me. Also thanks for the info about the new Wilcox guide. I'll be watching for it(and I'm not even a serious artist! Just a recreational one and it's still important! Money's money!) | ||
apiper |
Now, now.... MCKR, recreational artists' can create some mighty serious works. But, the important thing is that we enjoy isn't it. Gabriel, uh, I mean Cheap joe, are you going to carry the Wilcox Guide? | ||
drollere |
the wilcox guide is dreck. wilcox simply repeats the public information from the astm (the standards body that defined lightfastness tests in watercolors, and tested many pigments currently in use), or from the manufacturers. he hasn't corroborated the manufacturer information, and he hasn't tested the paints for lightfastness himself, and he uncritically repeats erroneous information from the astm. he simply gives you what's already printed on the side of the tubes of paint, with lots of lecturing about how no paint manufacturer lives up to his exalted standards, and charges you the price of the book for it. quite a racket! as far as i'm concerned it's a great service joe's doesn't carry the wilcox guide. the color index names are not infallible guides to paint content. they are generic identifiers that guarantee next to nothing about the pigments used in the paints. for example, well over 100 chemical manufacturers worldwide make phthalo blue pigments; these vary widely in color, chemical purity, particle size, lightfastness, etc. some of the pigments are used in plastics, or cosmetics, or cement, or inks, or food packaging -- and some are even used in paints. they all have the same color index number. the paint you use might have the pigment intended for paints in it, or the pigment intended for some other application. you can't be sure what it is. no "paint guide" can tell you, which is why i recommend you test paints yourself if you want your paintings to last. as for the color index in the catalog: i agree joe's should print the color index name or the generic pigment name for their own paints. with names like "bumblebee yellow" or "red hot mama" you have zero clue about what's in the stuff. but printing the CI info from other manufacturers is dicey. i know for a fact that some CI info from maimeriblu and sennelier is flat out wrong. joe's shouldn't be responsible for the accuracy of that information. | ||
apiper |
Good points. You are right, if I sell a painting it should be my responsibility to test for myself the durability of what goes into the painting. And wow, it did not even occur to me that cj's reputation depends on the accuracy of what info he is given. Thanks for the insights. |
