|
I love Dick Blick! I got my printing press there and it was over 2K cheaper than a smaller more name brand press I was looking at elsewhere and it works great and is built to last with a two year warrenty that I don't expect to ever have to use. We have a store about 10 minutes away and I go there frequently, and the people that work there are so nice and helpful. Thankfully I almost never have to order online. I say use whatever material works best for the money. I just wish the DB printmaking ink wasn't so terrible. It is basically Speedball ink with a different brand name slapped on it. But the price of ink probably matters a lot less than the cost of paint since only a thin layer is used during printing.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
mLee* edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Printmaking ink has more in common with paint than it does with writing ink. At least in western style printmaking, eastern is a totally different animal. In fact you can print with oil paints mixed with a bit of printing medium and get decent results. But serious printmakers should use fine quality ink designed for their specific type of printmaking. Relief, lithography, etching and silkscreen. I don't know much about silkscreen ink but I do know that Daniel Smith and Graphic Chemical brands make great ink for the other methods. I use a combination of both since they each have colors that the other lacks.
The absolute worst grade of ink is a waterbased ink made by the company Speedball. It is pure garbage and dries while you are trying to print making it hard to do a run of multiples. And if the paper gets wet later the ink runs. The colors are pretty awful too and they don't blend well. But people use it because it is cheap and available in most art supply stores while the good stuff usually has to be ordered online from the maker. It is also what schools tend to use.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
golden
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"i am not bound by materials."
but your art will be
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
lost4words [deleted] says:
Alizarin is a useless pigment which has long since been replaced with the excellent quinacridone.
Acrylic paint is horrible.
The first thing anyone tells you about is that you can make it look almost like watercolours or almost like oils.
Almost.
The idea of using paint that dries to a different colour thereby making it impossible to work for extended periods on, say, a portrait is stupid.
The fact that David Hockney's paintings are crumbling to dust should be a big enough hint to any prospective users of this stuff.
Added to that, some of the most important pigments don't even work as acrylics.
The charade is over - ban this rubbish now and return to using proper paint immediately.
You know you want to :-)
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
While I appreciate all this technical discussion and I have learned a good deal from it, I must make a short comment on Hockney's use of acrylics.
David Hockney made many of his earlier acrylic paintings when the flow and "open time" of acrylics was still pretty primitive and the paint behaved a bit like "Elmer's" white glue.
I recently had a chance to see the large Hockney portrait show which circulated through Los Angeles, where I live.
In an old book on Hockney's work he comments that he used liquid dish soap as a flow improver and drying time extender on those acrylics from the sixties and seventies.
Soap , depending on the manufacturer, can have an awful, alkaline effect on paint when it is mixed with acrylic.
Could this have something to do with the "crumbling to dust . . ." mentioned above?
Just an inquiry. No firm assertion here.
On with the technical discussion. I'm enjoying this.
I have recently begun using acrylics again, after decades of oil, egg tempera and watercolour painting.
--NCM
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I'm not being entirely serious - except about alizarin crimson :-)
To each their own.
www.icon.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...
I did read somewhere that acrylic paint has basically the same structure as a biodegradeable plastic bag.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
But but alizarin crimson is such a cool name! :)
As far as my passion against Speedball ink it comes from how I bought a bunch of it when I was starting out because it was cheap and I could pick it up locally. It was so awful to work with I ended up tossing all of it.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I still think of the quinacridone pink as alizarin because the name is so much nicer.
Sadly, alizarin fades in a really short time and is useless in glazes for that reason.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
lost4words edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
I believe with oil paints (at least this is the case with oil based printmaking inks) the issue is more the solvents used than the paint itself. As long as you aren't eating it or covering your body with it the paint itself is probably pretty harmless. I don't know about with paints but with printmaking there are some really great non toxic solvent alternatives that I am really into. I'm pregnant and I feel totally safe using them.
I've worked in some pretty nasty and toxic printmaking mediums over the years. Things like lithography and etching use acid so strong that it can turn your skin yellow if you get a drop of it on yourself. I knew of a kid that ended up having to take a semester off because he got so sick because he had been eating in the print lab. Oil painting pales in comparison to those mediums as far as toxicity goes. And printmaking has made great strides in recent years to become safer. If they can make etching safe they can make oil painting safe.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
mLee* edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
speedball ink does suck. Its all waterey.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"You don't mind if I keep painting with Acrylics so I don't die from Cancer caused by Oils, do you?"
By all means keep painting with acrylics and keel over from toluene, formaldhyde and other toxic preservatives contained within the paint. Toxicity of oils ranges among colours, but by far the greatest threat is not from the paints, but rather the solvents used with them. While information abounds about the toxic effects of paints and solvents, for those that choose to investigate safe alternatives, painting with oils can be perfectly safe.
An added bonus of oils is that your paintings will outlive you. The same cannot be said for acrylics. There is world-wide effort to find solutions for the preservation of self-destructing acrylic paintings a mere 30-40 years old. The Tate collection includes 35% acrylic pieces, and they are among the hardest hit. That's what you get for investing in plastic crap.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i just want to say, as a previous oil painter now working at illustration, i am trying, really really trying to get these &%^$ #^&$* acrylics (and water colors, gouache) to work for me and i really HATE them. i'm seriously trying not to... i have great respect now for anyone who can make acrylics beautiful.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Speedball makes some decent products, relief ink and apparently calligraphy ink not included. Their brayers are pretty good for the money, and their linocutting tools aren't bad. I have heard pretty good things about their screenprinting ink as well.
wander, I have found that with gouache quality makes all the difference in the world.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Marissa - yes! I tried the cheap gouche first , it was really powdery and didn't stick well if I remember... the name brand (? I'd have to run down & see) from Blicks was absolutely, noticably better.
Merrell, you are right- i have had some recent success with acrylics (btw I've never tried the cheap ones, but I'm not sure what the difference is between liqued and 'gel', that's a new one!) and the reason is I discovered how to make a palette that sits in a tub with wet paper underneath, and spray the paints regularely with water and add retarder.
Quality pastels make all the difference too, no color in the cheap ones, like crayons (I'm a mom, oh hell, doesn't everyone like to draw every now and then in crayons, come on, admit it!) but a friend of mine says she uses the cheap pastels on top of the better ones at the end because they seem to 'stand out' and make certain areas 'pop'.
seems it just matters what effect you're after.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
a mere excursion edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
Sorry to be contrary Merrill, but I feel compelled to respond to some of your assertions.
"Now, Oil painters like to be slick... they would like for us all to believe that the paint glides out of the tube and onto the Canvas". - No painter worthy of calling themselves such would think of directly painting from tube to canvas except maybe in special circumstances. This is a long standing artsy in-joke that is used to ridicule inferior artists. By asserting otherwise shows a deep misunderstanding of the handling of materials as it applies to the painting process.
"One thing I don't know is whether there are student grade Oil products as there are in Acrylics. " - of course there are. Obviously a personal visit to a proper art supply store is long overdue.
By the way, in another recent post you asserted that Zhou Enlai died of cancer related to painting in an attempt to illustrate the dangers of oils. While I respect your opinion on the matter, please stop making stuff up as it destroys your credibility. Zhou Enlai was not a painter, he happened to be the 1st Premier of the PRC. He died of bladder cancer in 1974, which was completely unrelated to oil paint or solvents. I doubt if he ever held a paint brush in his life. His only claim as an artist was a deep inderstanding of the art of revolution.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
Paulsydney edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
I think that even Turner would struggle with acrylics, to be honest.
The idea of choosing art materials on the basis of safety is so depressing.
Alkyd oil colours dry at a reasonable rate.
Titanium white is crap by any standards.
crap crap crap
crap
It's only use is as underpainting white.
or to touch up your coving.
Flake white or zinc white are the only whites worth bothering with.
Do you want to paint or to be a health and safety officer?
You will never hear anyone say;
"The great thing about watercolours is that I can make them look exactly like acrylics"
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think if your just starting out you should try as many mediums as possible. See what does what. Experiment.
Watercolors for me are very difficult. I think they are quite beautiful though. Alan Lee does amazing things with them. Oils in my opinion are also beautiful. I love some of the old masters. I even like the yellowing of them. Also I love the oil paintings of Mark Ryden. His skin tones are not greasy at all.
I used to use them straight out of the tube. I was a student at the time. I liked there thickness and wanted to see what they would do.
Try house paint as someone said you may like it. Try as many things as you can and then decide whats inferior. Try coffee as an under painting. look at oil paintings in museums or galleries look at the a lot. Look at acrylic paintings in museums or galleries. Try and see if you can tell what is acrylic and what is oil just by looking at them. You can get a lot of good advice form others who have tried different things but if you don't try them you won't know what they can do for you. Don't be so worried about dying from your medium choice.
Open windows and use fans.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
kalien68 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Boss Ross doesn't use anything anymore. He's dead.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Don't ever change Merrill. Your world view combined with a well above average grasp of the English language provides no end of amusement. In your honour, I've ripped off FARK's Florida tag.
BTW - If one's profile page is anything to go by I think your "Taurus" is a he and not a she.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
Paulsydney edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
I've just finished reading through this thread and only have a few minutes to respond, but I wouldn’t call Ross the "oil painters God" although watching him turn out "happy little trees" and "happy clouds" was entertaining to say the least.
Now, Merrell, I have to point out that you are seeking to be accepted as an artist who paints exclusively with acrylics. You want acrylics to get the respect that they deserve. You want everyone to recognize the qualities that acrylics posses. You want acrylics; acrylics want you; everyone praise the power of acrylics! Great! But might I suggest that your argument would be much stronger if you eliminate the insults to other mediums while combining examples of brilliant acrylic works, plenty of them exist.
I've used both, in fact started with acrylics. For me, and I mean no disrespect here, oils carried an inherent sort of "ability" clause. In the beginning, I was afraid of oils. Painting with oils seemed to be out of my realm of knowledge and confidence. I was personally more comfortable with acrylics. As I grew and explored other mediums, including watercolors, I found oils to be fantastic and the best medium for me. I'm sure the majority of the members of this group are already familiar with both the benefits and the drawbacks that each medium carries. Choosing which works best for you is part of becoming an artist. And insulting the medium an artist chooses tends to exemplify a lack of knowledge and a lack of the "sweetest, open minded, generous..." qualities that you claim to possess. Your personal choice of medium in no way eliminates the validity of another.
One final thing. You mentioned that oil is: "a great medium for very indecisive, fickle and indeterminate people who need all the time in the world to decide how a paint blend should look. Great for people with poor architecturing skills or who have problems with commitment." Again, your brief period of time exploring what a medium can accomplish shines through in this quote. The long dry time of oils allows the artist an opportunity to create blends, subtle variations in light, unique lines and brushwork, as well as a myriad of other benefits that acrylics lack. Oils never look chalky, and require no additional layers to eliminate the "dry" look. Your belief that "Oil has simply been replaced by a far superior product." has no basis in reality other than in your own mind. Artists who paint in Oil are just as plentiful as artists who paint in acrylic, and in fact, the scale probably tips in the direction of Oil not acrylic. Either way it does not matter. The medium is inconsequential if the artist is producing work that they are proud of.
Also, before you claim that Oil paints create a "lifeless, dull, impassionate greasy look" I would suggest you do a few of your so called "ridiculous amount of color studies" with a tube or two of oil paint and then tell us how dull the paint appears
And by the way when an artist who is painting with oils reaches a stopping point on a particular canvas they don't need to "find ways to occupy their time while the paint dries" they simply move to another canvas. Personally, I have three canvases going right now and move back and forth between them so as to not have to leave the "zone" once I am in it. I feel confident that am not alone in this practice. I've had up to five pieces going at once and never find myself thinking, "damn this oil paint...now I have to wait." It's NEVER happened.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
When I was in art school not too terribly long ago every painting class I ever took encouraged us to use oil paints. I can't remember a single class where we used acrylics. It was always oils. I believe that acrylics have their place especially in certain styles of art, but I like the rich colors that oils give much better overall.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
mlee- We were given a 'choice' in some of the classes that I've been through, but Oils were often the required medium.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thrown in jail for not using expensive "A" list paint?
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thats stupid
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
Acrylics just get a bad rap from me because I've used them and I don't like them.
If I liked them I would use them.
The science is irrelevant to me.
I'm not loyal in a blind way
ActualIy, I do have a set of acrylics which I use to underpaint with.
They help me to block a canvas in quite quickly.
It's such a revelation to then paint the second layer with oils - the depth and richness of colour is entirely in a different class.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I almost threw out some oil paints that were my husbands. Reading this thread made me keep them. I think I might give them a try.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
kalien68 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
Shoot, I used to use inferior materials when I was starting out. I didn't have any money but I really wanted to make something. Lock me up!
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
mLee* edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
Darren Daz Cox [deleted] says:
(from Wikipedia
Ryder used his materials liberally and without care. His paintings, which he often worked on for ten years or more, were built up of layers of paint and varnish applied on top of each other. He would often paint into wet varnish, or apply a layer of fast-drying paint over a layer of slow-drying paint. The result is that paintings by Ryder remain unstable and become much darker over time; they crack readily, do not fully dry even after decades, and sometimes completely disintegrate. Because of this, and because some Ryder paintings were completed or reworked by others after his death, many Ryder paintings appear very different today than they did when first created.
What is important to note is that Ryder painted for himself, not to impress or for money, his imagination was stimulated as he labored over his work. Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many!
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh I get it now. Sorry.
Originally posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
kalien68 edited this topic 62 months ago.
|
|
|
People buy cars because they are reliable so yeah if they turn out not to be you feel ripped off. I don't think we should have to say what we make our art with. I don't think people buy art because of what its made out of.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Darren Daz Cox [deleted] says:
I'd rather have a shabby deteriorating A.P.Ryder piece than anything in perfect condition mass produced by an Andy Warhol or his ilk....
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There are some really top notch schools in the New England area. RISD of course, Mass Art and SMFA come to mind.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Art and Artists. /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Art and Artists. discussion threads
