Oil painting techniques ?
Melissa
particular order the colors need to be applied when painting to allow
for this? Like the slower drying colors must go down first..etc. Is
this a crucial isssue?
I've been painting for 7 years and have never had any problems. I use
Galkyd to speed the drying time.
Also, I've never varnished a painting and I would like to. I know that
Gamblin makes a product called Damvar, anyone have experience with
this? Is damar varnish the only other alternative? Any advise on
technique would be appreciated.
A friend suggested I use an acrylic one--can't remember the name now,
made by liquitex.
I'm not sure how I feel about puting acrylic over oils--just a
personal preference.
thanks!
Melissa
Dr. Slick
> I am wondering about the drying time of an oil painting. Is there a
> particular order the colors need to be applied when painting to allow
> for this? Like the slower drying colors must go down first..etc. Is
> this a crucial isssue?
>
I wouldn't think so. It would suck to have to lay down certain
colors first. However, the "fat over lean" principle seems somewhat
valid.
> I've been painting for 7 years and have never had any problems. I use
> Galkyd to speed the drying time.
>
> Also, I've never varnished a painting and I would like to. I know that
> Gamblin makes a product called Damvar, anyone have experience with
> this? Is damar varnish the only other alternative? Any advise on
> technique would be appreciated.
> A friend suggested I use an acrylic one--can't remember the name now,
> made by liquitex.
> I'm not sure how I feel about puting acrylic over oils--just a
> personal preference.
>
It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
other way around. Supposedly, this has to with the "fat over lean"
theory, of putting the more flexible layers on top. But in terms of
adhesion, why would oils stick bettter to acrylics as opposed to
acrylics sticking to oils? I dunno.
I wonder if some brave soul has actually tried painting
something nice with acrylics over oils, and if there were any
problems.
I've used "traditional" gloss damar varnish, and it seems to
work very nicely to even out the different sheens of the layers (some
were mixed with more medium, turps, etc..), and it can bring out a
certain lustre and richness of color in the painting.
BTW, i've got a few acrylic paintings that i did no final
varnish on, and i actually like the matte finish of the raw acrylics.
Less sheen, which can be the drawback of gloss varnish in certain
lighting conditions.
Someday i'll try the matte damar varnish on a oil and see if i
like it.
Garvin Yee
C. Enna
says...
> It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
>other way around.
WRONG answer considering the disccussion is about
a 'final varnish' applied after the oil painting is
thoroughly dried. IN FACT I know of professional artists
who use an aerosol acrylic as soon as the oil is dry
to the touch if they are going to be entering the painting
in an exhibit or gallery. Some conservators claim acrylic
is a better varnish than traditional damar when it comes
time to clean and restore a painting.
Once more, I recommend buying the ARTIST'S HANDBOOK
by Mayer when someone has questions of the sort asked
by Melissa. Or at least look in your
library's copy of same.
Rick Taylor
> In article <1d15af91.03031...@posting.google.com>, radi...@aol.com
> > It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
There are different types of acrylic varnish... Some of
them are real similar to medium {they are medium in a
few cases}
Some aerosols have a sort of petrolium base {from what
I recall. {Someone in here may know the actual makeup
of the stuff.}}
I'd say... read the label. :}
--
Rick Taylor - rickt...@speakeasy.net - {exile} - ex...@speakeasy.net
In a universe of free choice, unrestrained by divine tutelage, received
dominant ideas, or unshakable norms of "civilised" behavior, one can
do anything one chooses. {Free Noise Manifesto}
Dr. Slick
>
> > It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
> >other way around.
>
> WRONG answer considering the disccussion is about
> a 'final varnish' applied after the oil painting is
> thoroughly dried. IN FACT I know of professional artists
> who use an aerosol acrylic as soon as the oil is dry
> to the touch if they are going to be entering the painting
> in an exhibit or gallery. Some conservators claim acrylic
> is a better varnish than traditional damar when it comes
> time to clean and restore a painting.
>
NO. You can be arrested by the art police for using acrylics
over oils!
LOL, i just knew some dogmatic artist would get pissed off when
i wrote that. I'm JUST KIDDING about the "against the law" part, you
can do anything you want.
OK, I have no doubt that people use acrylic varnish over a dry
oil painting. But then why couldn't one use regular acylics over oils
as well? If the acrylic varnish adheres well, then so should the
acrylic color.
Why not alternate between oil and acylics in the same painting,
then? Why is this not recommended?
Slick
C. Enna
says...
> OK, I have no doubt that people use acrylic varnish over a dry
>oil painting. But then why couldn't one use regular acylics over oils
>as well? If the acrylic varnish adheres well, then so should the
>acrylic color.
The difference is that the varnish is supposed
to be easily removable - that's what restoration
is all about! Also, damar yellows with age
whereas acrylic isn't supposed to. So it's
of no importance whether a final varnish coat
doesn't adhere well - although I've never heard
there is a problem with it that way. BTW, I am
certainly no authority on this matter - just
quoting other sources. And I've used the Krylon
brand aerosol acrylic on my own oil paintings.
As the other poster points out, acrylic is not
always a water-base coating. The aerosol is a
quick-drying distillate of some sort.
Dr. Slick
>
>
> The difference is that the varnish is supposed
> to be easily removable - that's what restoration
> is all about! Also, damar yellows with age
> whereas acrylic isn't supposed to. So it's
> of no importance whether a final varnish coat
> doesn't adhere well - although I've never heard
> there is a problem with it that way. BTW, I am
> certainly no authority on this matter - just
> quoting other sources. And I've used the Krylon
> brand aerosol acrylic on my own oil paintings.
> As the other poster points out, acrylic is not
> always a water-base coating. The aerosol is a
> quick-drying distillate of some sort.
Damar is actually already a bit yellow, but you don't
really see it cos it's really a thin coat. Maybe not too thick
of a coat, and you won't notice the yellowing even 100 years from
now.
I don't agree that the final varnish doesn't have to adhere
well, they clearly adhere well enough to protect the painting.
You made you point, but no one has answered the question:
Why is it accepted practice to paint oils over acrylics and not
the other way around? If this is a "fat over lean" principle,
then perhaps it's ok to go in ONE direction only. But
acrylics-oil-acrylics is maybe too much of a sandwich to prevent
cracking. But if we go from only oils to acrylics, why is this
not done????
Dr. Slick
Rick Taylor
> Why not alternate between oil and acylics in the same painting,
> then? Why is this not recommended?
It doesn't adhere well... oils have oil in them... they take a long time to dry
"completely", they dry at different rates... you get all sorts of weird blooming
and seepage, etc, etc, yadda...
They're just not compatible... acrylic, when it's dry, makes a fairly
decent base for oils... but... you still get the differences in flexibility
which can lead to cracking... acrylic's not all that absorbent, etc...
{One of the reasons, in addition to opacity and whitening, they fill it
{acrylic gesso} with calcium carbonate and other fillers {I think...
at least that's always been my assumption... is that they provide a
little better adhesion and absorbency. {I think there is a section
devoted to it in Mayers book.}}
If I were going to use oils over acrylics I'd stick to washes and glazes.
Use them to add depth to the color of acrylics and so forth.
Some of my paintings with texture, etc have already started to crack in
places. {Some of them had within a year. {I don't use garbage paint...
that's not an issue.}}
I think that if you're going to use oils seriously... you should learn how to
use traditional gessos and linens... maybe even panels.
Oils can be really gorgeous. It's one of those situations in which you
get what you give.
C. Enna
says...
> I think that if you're going to use oils seriously... you should learn how to
> use traditional gessos and linens... maybe even panels.
Again I disagree. Can't imagine how many thousands
of paintings have been created since the invention
of acrylic gesso! I have never painted on any other
primer. And my oldest paintings are now over 35
years old and I've yet to see a single crack in
any of my oils that have been on the stretchers
all of that time. OTOH, I have to roll my paintings
in order to store them since I have such a large
inventory and the oils will crack if not rolled
carefully/properly whereas I've had no problems
at all with acrylic paintings cracking, even after
re-stretching. And I've painted in acrylics for
as long as I've been painting in oils, as the
mood and subject dictate. Of course I have never painted in
heavy impasto passages, so that could be a reason
for no cracking.
J's Place
> They're just not compatible... acrylic, when it's dry, makes a fairly
> decent base for oils... but... you still get the differences in flexibility
> which can lead to cracking... acrylic's not all that absorbent, etc...
It's arguable whether what I'm going to relate here
has any bearing on paintings on canvas:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/3dart/3dart.html
Scroll to the bottom of the page. The painted furniture
pieces - and yes, I do consider some of my decorated
furniture to be 'paintings' - they just happen to use
furniture as a support. And a rigid support versus
the flex of canvas. But what I want to point out is
the mix of 'paints' I use. The furniture is taken to
the bare wood before beginning the refinishing, then
primed with a product called KILZ. I use both an oil
based and water based KILZ, depending on what I have
on hand. The actual paint is water-based acrylic
from commercial paint stores. And the final protective
coat is an oil-based polyurethanve varnish that goes
on by brush in two coats for added scratch and
moisture resistance that the acrylic paint does not
afford.
Many of the other painted wooden objects on the
web page http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/3dart/3dart.html
are finished with a regular clear coat of acrylic
varnish (or medium), but these are not expected to
see the kind of use furniture gets.
I've been using this method for as long as polyurethane
varnish has been on the market, I think. For at least
30 years. And I've yet to have a failure of the coating
on any piece finished this way. Now, I don't envy anyone
wanting to strip off this coating in order to do their
own refinishing!
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) writes:
>
> > Why not alternate between oil and acylics in the same painting,
> > then? Why is this not recommended?
>
> It doesn't adhere well... oils have oil in them... they take a long time to dry
> "completely", they dry at different rates... you get all sorts of weird blooming
> and seepage, etc, etc, yadda...
>
> They're just not compatible... acrylic, when it's dry, makes a fairly
> decent base for oils... but... you still get the differences in flexibility
> which can lead to cracking... acrylic's not all that absorbent, etc...
> {One of the reasons, in addition to opacity and whitening, they fill it
> {acrylic gesso} with calcium carbonate and other fillers {I think...
> at least that's always been my assumption... is that they provide a
> little better adhesion and absorbency. {I think there is a section
> devoted to it in Mayers book.}}
>
I've read all the things you have mentioned. And maybe from a
practical point of view, acrylics may be acceptable to paint over with
oils only because acrylics dry so fast. (Maybe some crazy genius will
try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
Painting acrylics over DRY oils may be equally incompatible in
terms of flexibility, but it's not done because waiting for the oils
to dry eats away at your studio time. Oil over acrylics would be
blazing fast in comparison.
> If I were going to use oils over acrylics I'd stick to washes and glazes.
> Use them to add depth to the color of acrylics and so forth.
>
Some artists use acrylic washes and glazes underneath oils, to
set tincture.
Dr. Slick
Rick Taylor
> In article <87d6kr4...@exile.speakeasy.net>, rickt...@speakeasy.net
> says...
>
> > I think that if you're going to use oils seriously... you should learn how to
> > use traditional gessos and linens... maybe even panels.
>
> Again I disagree. Can't imagine how many thousands
> of paintings have been created since the invention
> of acrylic gesso! I have never painted on any other
Far too many. :}
> primer. And my oldest paintings are now over 35
> years old and I've yet to see a single crack in
> any of my oils that have been on the stretchers
I do/did some pretty bizarre things with grounds... I have one
painting, here which is painted over torn sheets that I ripped
and then built a canvas from using acrylic medium {Which is
still fine}, some of them have layers of paper over the canvas,
I use all sorts of texturing stuff, etc... The paintings with paper
{tracing paper... It gets all sorts of veins, etc when you cover
it with medium. Watercolor, on the other hand, stretches to
look really beautiful {if you're careful with it.}} on them have
been the biggest problem {the paintings done with acrylic are
fine though.}
Granted, the paintings done in traditional style hold up really
well... Heavy glazes on large canvases are the biggest problem.
The main reason I'd suggest going with linens and gesso, etc
is that it looks so much better. It is more permanent as well...
> all of that time. OTOH, I have to roll my paintings
> in order to store them since I have such a large
> inventory and the oils will crack if not rolled
I have several hundred around here... the oldest of which
probably dates back to the mid 8os... {stuff before that
being student stuff, etc} rolled stuff is the biggest problem.
> carefully/properly whereas I've had no problems
> at all with acrylic paintings cracking, even after
> re-stretching. And I've painted in acrylics for
Acrylics by themselves don't crack. {That I know of anyway...}
> as long as I've been painting in oils, as the
> mood and subject dictate. Of course I have never painted in
> heavy impasto passages, so that could be a reason
> for no cracking.
There is a big difference.
:} 'Twas a criminal that invented modeling paste.
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<87d6kr4...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> > radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) writes:
> > > Why not alternate between oil and acylics in the same painting,
> > > then? Why is this not recommended?
> > They're just not compatible... acrylic, when it's dry, makes a fairly
> I've read all the things you have mentioned. And maybe from a
> practical point of view, acrylics may be acceptable to paint over with
> oils only because acrylics dry so fast. (Maybe some crazy genius will
It doesn't work that way. Acrylics may paint on top of oils... they don't
last at all.
> try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
:} Doesn't work at all.
> Painting acrylics over DRY oils may be equally incompatible in
> terms of flexibility, but it's not done because waiting for the oils
Still doesn't work.Oils continue to dry for a *long* time.
> to dry eats away at your studio time. Oil over acrylics would be
> blazing fast in comparison.
Yeah... you get some of the color advantages of oil as well.
I'm beginning to wonder at todays emphasis on "fast" though... It seems
to me that "fast" frequently equates to "garbage".
Dr. Slick
>
> It doesn't work that way. Acrylics may paint on top of oils... they don't
> last at all.
>
Have you tried it? Acrylics over dry oils? How do you know?
> > try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
>
> :} Doesn't work at all.
>
I doubt very many people have ever tried it. How do you know?
Because someone told you, or you read it somewhere?
Please define "doesn't work at all". Mixing wet oils and
acrylics MAY actually work for SOMETHING, SOMEDAY. (something
abstract, most likely)
> > Painting acrylics over DRY oils may be equally incompatible in
> > terms of flexibility, but it's not done because waiting for the oils
>
> Still doesn't work.Oils continue to dry for a *long* time.
>
ok, so the diffence in drying time would seem to be the main
reason: use the faster drying medium first. But this is a separate
reason than adhesion between layers.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder at todays emphasis on "fast" though... It seems
> to me that "fast" frequently equates to "garbage".
If you are a big time artist with lot's of commissions (I'm
not at the moment), i can imagine that you take deadlines and
time-to-compleation pretty seriously.
Slick
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<87r897c...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> > It doesn't work that way. Acrylics may paint on top of oils... they don't
> > last at all.
> Have you tried it? Acrylics over dry oils? How do you know?
Yes. It may last you through a show or something but that's about all.
{maybe a little longer... it's not permanent at all.}
> > > try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
> > :} Doesn't work at all.
> I doubt very many people have ever tried it. How do you know?
> Because someone told you, or you read it somewhere?
I've tried it... try it yourself... smear some oil on a scrap then try to put acrylic
over it.
You can smear traces of watercolor and acrylic into wet oils... just a tiny
bit and only if you're out of a particular color and just need a tint. I've done
that several times... it hasn't seemed to hurt anything. Watercolors are a
little closer to straight pigment... I'd probably stick to those. This is only an
emergency thing though.
> Please define "doesn't work at all". Mixing wet oils and
> acrylics MAY actually work for SOMETHING, SOMEDAY. (something
> abstract, most likely)
I'd not thought of that one... :} I wonder... maybe something like one of
those '6os oil light shows?
Try it. You may get something out of it...
> > > Painting acrylics over DRY oils may be equally incompatible in
> > > terms of flexibility, but it's not done because waiting for the oils
> >
> > Still doesn't work.Oils continue to dry for a *long* time.
> ok, so the diffence in drying time would seem to be the main
> reason: use the faster drying medium first. But this is a separate
> reason than adhesion between layers.
You've use Italian {oil and vinegar} dressing? Have you ever mixed
it? Same concept. Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
then stretch the rubber band."
> > I'm beginning to wonder at todays emphasis on "fast" though... It seems
> > to me that "fast" frequently equates to "garbage".
>
> If you are a big time artist with lot's of commissions (I'm
> not at the moment), i can imagine that you take deadlines and
> time-to-compleation pretty seriously.
Of course. This doesn't mean they need to be fast. You need
to be able to estimate a reasonable time so that you can do the
work properly and make your deadline... If someone switches a
deadline on you or needs something in an unreasonable amount
of time... I guess you can't actually take responsibility for that...
Otherwise... you know how fast you can work...
Rick Taylor
> I am wondering about the drying time of an oil painting. Is there a
> particular order the colors need to be applied when painting to allow
> for this? Like the slower drying colors must go down first..etc. Is
> this a crucial isssue?
I don't think it's hugely critical... mayer does go into all this at
great length in the Artists handbook... {A great way to spend... :}
I don't even know how much it sells for these days... last time I
sold it it was around $50}
> I've been painting for 7 years and have never had any problems. I use
> Galkyd to speed the drying time.
I use liquin or linseed oil with cobalt drier... The drier's dangerous stuff
though... You can make your paint dry before it hits the canvas... you
can also give it a less than lovely purple crackly/crystalline texture. :}
> Also, I've never varnished a painting and I would like to. I know that
> Gamblin makes a product called Damvar, anyone have experience with
> this? Is damar varnish the only other alternative? Any advise on
> technique would be appreciated.
> A friend suggested I use an acrylic one--can't remember the name now,
> made by liquitex.
Check the label... their acrylic is to put over acrylic.
Rick Taylor
C. Enna
says...
> I'm beginning to wonder at todays emphasis on "fast" though... It seems
> to me that "fast" frequently equates to "garbage".
You can't get any "faster" than watercolor,
and I certainly admire a lot of work I've
seen in watercolor. Maybe "immediate" is
more appropriate instead of "faster."
My favorite watercolorist: Charles Burchfield
C. Enna
says...
>Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
> of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
> then stretch the rubber band."
Hey, I like that demo. It's far easier to
demo than my suggestion of painting both
oil and acrylic onto a glass surface.
C. Enna
says...
> I use liquin or linseed oil with cobalt drier... The drier's dangerous stuff
> though... You can make your paint dry before it hits the canvas... you
> can also give it a less than lovely purple crackly/crystalline texture. :}
I first thought you meant dangerous in a toxic sense.
Cobalt IS toxic but so is everything else in an artist's
"professional" kit.
Dangerous to the painted result is another matter.
I put ONLY one, or at most two, drops of cobalt drier
into a palette cup full of medium. From there it gets
mixed into the colors (tube paints) that I desire to
have dry faster - like the titanium white used for
tinting. If I don't use the all of the medium in
the palette cup, and it sits for very long, it will
turn to jelly - an indicator of just how the drier
works.
And once again, I consider the terms "drying"
and "drier" a misrepresentation of what is going
on chemically. I wish "set" and "setting" were the
accepted terms - like concrete, which does "dry" as
it "sets" but it's the "setting" that makes it concrete,
not the "drying" up of the water. In fact, with
concrete, you try to avoid having the water dry
from the hardening mass too quickly - thereby adding
strength to it since it takes a full 28 days for
concrete to "cure" or fully "set."
I used to use Liquin, and similar products, but found
that they don't suit my way of working so now I
use the cobalt napthenate exclusively.
Rick Taylor
He was a really good teacher...
It does explain the whole thing fairly well. :}
Rick Taylor
> In article <87r897c...@exile.speakeasy.net>, rickt...@speakeasy.net
> says...
>
> > I'm beginning to wonder at todays emphasis on "fast" though... It seems
> > to me that "fast" frequently equates to "garbage".
>
> You can't get any "faster" than watercolor,
> and I certainly admire a lot of work I've
> seen in watercolor. Maybe "immediate" is
> more appropriate instead of "faster."
By "fast" I meant... painted too fast... It seems to me that a lot of stuff today just
gets tossed together... just enough to get paid, etc...} Personally, I've always
considered "throwaway" stuff to be something to throw away. :}
I love watercolors... they've got a clarity and a sort of sparkle like nothing else.
I used to do a lot of airbrush stuff... It's amazing what sort of effects you can get
with them.
> My favorite watercolorist: Charles Burchfield
I'm not really that familiar... From a quick search... his stuff looks a bit like Hoppers...
} I'm getting a lot more tolerant these days... I used to not be able to deal with that
sort of realism at all.
Rick Taylor
:} Sounds more appropriate to acrylic to me but... I guess it's your "term".
I used to premix stuff in bottles... Liquin does start to feel a little artificial
after a while. Linseed oil and cobalt drier worked out to be my favorite.
> I used to use Liquin, and similar products, but found
> that they don't suit my way of working so now I
> use the cobalt napthenate exclusively.
Nowadays... I just use a computer. It seems to me that there are absolutely
no limits with digital.
Dr. Slick
>
> Yes. It may last you through a show or something but that's about all.
> {maybe a little longer... it's not permanent at all.}
>
I really doubt that it's much less permanent then oils over
acrylics.
I'm talking about acrylics over DRY oils.
>
> > Please define "doesn't work at all". Mixing wet oils and
> > acrylics MAY actually work for SOMETHING, SOMEDAY. (something
> > abstract, most likely)
>
> I'd not thought of that one... :} I wonder... maybe something like one of
> those '6os oil light shows?
>
> Try it. You may get something out of it...
>
Gee, thanks for the permission to be open minded.
>
> > ok, so the diffence in drying time would seem to be the main
> > reason: use the faster drying medium first. But this is a separate
> > reason than adhesion between layers.
>
> You've use Italian {oil and vinegar} dressing? Have you ever mixed
> it? Same concept. Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
> of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
> then stretch the rubber band."
>
You still haven't answered my question. Why is it ok to have
oils on acrylics and not the other way around?
Using your analogy, it shouldn't matter what order you place
the oil and vinegar, they will still not mix. Are you saying they
will mix, but that you have to put the vinegar down first?
> > If you are a big time artist with lot's of commissions (I'm
> > not at the moment), i can imagine that you take deadlines and
> > time-to-compleation pretty seriously.
>
> Of course. This doesn't mean they need to be fast. You need
> to be able to estimate a reasonable time so that you can do the
> work properly and make your deadline... If someone switches a
> deadline on you or needs something in an unreasonable amount
> of time... I guess you can't actually take responsibility for that...
> Otherwise... you know how fast you can work...
I take it you do art for a hobby and not a proffession?
Big difference.
Garvin Yee
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<87adfuc...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> > Yes. It may last you through a show or something but that's about all.
> > {maybe a little longer... it's not permanent at all.}
> I really doubt that it's much less permanent then oils over
> acrylics. I'm talking about acrylics over DRY oils.
As Erik mentions above... "200 years" {to stabilize anyway} I don't remember
what the actual drying time is... I do know it's much longer than most of us
would want to wait between painting sessions.
> > > Please define "doesn't work at all". Mixing wet oils and
> > > acrylics MAY actually work for SOMETHING, SOMEDAY. (something
> > > abstract, most likely)
> >
> > I'd not thought of that one... :} I wonder... maybe something like one of
> > those '6os oil light shows?
> >
> > Try it. You may get something out of it...
>
> Gee, thanks for the permission to be open minded.
Permission to use it.
> > > ok, so the diffence in drying time would seem to be the main
> > > reason: use the faster drying medium first. But this is a separate
> > > reason than adhesion between layers.
> >
> > You've use Italian {oil and vinegar} dressing? Have you ever mixed
> > it? Same concept. Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
> > of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
> > then stretch the rubber band."
>
> You still haven't answered my question. Why is it ok to have
> oils on acrylics and not the other way around?
> Using your analogy, it shouldn't matter what order you place
> the oil and vinegar, they will still not mix. Are you saying they
> will mix, but that you have to put the vinegar down first?
It's not, really... you can get away with one. They don't mix.
If you let the vinegar dry first... you can put oil on it.
It's not really all that complex.
> > > If you are a big time artist with lot's of commissions (I'm
> > > not at the moment), i can imagine that you take deadlines and
> > > time-to-compleation pretty seriously.
> >
> > Of course. This doesn't mean they need to be fast. You need
> > to be able to estimate a reasonable time so that you can do the
> > work properly and make your deadline... If someone switches a
> > deadline on you or needs something in an unreasonable amount
> > of time... I guess you can't actually take responsibility for that...
> > Otherwise... you know how fast you can work...
>
> I take it you do art for a hobby and not a proffession?
Why would you derive that from the above?
> Big difference.
That being?
C. Enna
says...
> I'm not really that familiar... From a quick search... his stuff looks a bit
li
>ke Hoppers...
You're jerking my leg, right? I assume you
mean Eddie Hopper? I can't imagine anyone thinking
Burchfield's works come even close to resembling
works by Hopper. Burchfield was a romantic who
had a very unique way of depicting nature and
his work fits into no easily categorized genre
that I know of. Perhaps close to symbolist works,
but that would be a stretch too, IMO.
Andrew D
radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>mell...@mac.com (Melissa) wrote in message
news:<e41fb13a.0303...@posting.google.com>...
>> I am wondering about the drying time of an oil painting. Is there a
>> particular order the colors need to be applied when painting to allow
>> for this? Like the slower drying colors must go down first..etc. Is
>> this a crucial isssue?
>>
>
> I wouldn't think so. It would suck to have to lay down certain
>colors first. However, the "fat over lean" principle seems somewhat
>valid.
If you paint in a layered technique where each layer is allowed to "dry"
before the next layer is applied, then different colours certainly can
make a difference since some contain more oil than others and these days,
some will contain different oils (linseed, sunflower, poppy...) which dry
at different rates. If you paint "wet on wet" then "fat over lean" doesn't
apply since you technically have one layer of paint.
[snip]
> It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
>other way around. Supposedly, this has to with the "fat over lean"
>theory, of putting the more flexible layers on top.
In this case, it's simply because water-based paint isn't going to bond to
an oil-based surface. (Acrylic is more flexible that oil)
> But in terms of
>adhesion, why would oils stick bettter to acrylics as opposed to
>acrylics sticking to oils? I dunno.
Because oil repels water. When acrylic dries, ALL the water evaporates
leaving a "plastic" film. When oil paint dries, the solvent (turps)
evaporates but the oil remains.
[snip]
> BTW, i've got a few acrylic paintings that i did no final
>varnish on, and i actually like the matte finish of the raw acrylics.
>Less sheen, which can be the drawback of gloss varnish in certain
>lighting conditions.
The problem is that the acrylic paint surface is filled with microscopic
holes. Over time, these holes collect dust and grime that cannot be
removed. The reason for using varnish is that the varnish is removable so
paintings can be freshened up when need be without damaging the actual
painting. Varnish doesn't have to be glossy.
> Someday i'll try the matte damar varnish on a oil and see if i
>like it.
The problem with varnishing oils is that you have to wait at least 6 months. :(
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
>In article <1d15af91.03031...@posting.google.com>, radi...@aol.com
>says...
>
>
>> It's against the law to put acrylic over oils, but not the
>>other way around.
>
>WRONG answer considering the disccussion is about
>a 'final varnish' applied after the oil painting is
>thoroughly dried. IN FACT I know of professional artists
>who use an aerosol acrylic as soon as the oil is dry
>to the touch if they are going to be entering the painting
>in an exhibit or gallery. Some conservators claim acrylic
>is a better varnish than traditional damar when it comes
>time to clean and restore a painting.
I assume these varnishes are based on acrylic lacquer (similar to the
spray paints used on cars) or even an acrylic-enamel rather than a
latex-type acrylic such as artists' acrylic paint.
Acrylic lacquer will bond to oil-based paint but care should be taken that
the solvents don't attack the paint film.
Andrew D
radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
[snip]
> I've read all the things you have mentioned. And maybe from a
>practical point of view, acrylics may be acceptable to paint over with
>oils only because acrylics dry so fast. (Maybe some crazy genius will
>try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
With the new water-mixable oils this is entirely possible - it says so on
the brochure!
But water-mixable oils are modified by the removal of that component of
the oil molecule that makes oil repel water.
G*rd*n
| says...
|
| > I'm not really that familiar... From a quick search... his stuff looks a bit
| li
| >ke Hoppers...
ce...@noemailever.com (C. Enna):
| You're jerking my leg, right? I assume you
| mean Eddie Hopper? I can't imagine anyone thinking
| Burchfield's works come even close to resembling
| works by Hopper. Burchfield was a romantic who
| had a very unique way of depicting nature and
| his work fits into no easily categorized genre
| that I know of. Perhaps close to symbolist works,
| but that would be a stretch too, IMO.
He also did some, you might say, straight stuff, small-town
buildings and so on, did he not? Which have a certain
spookiness that might be related to the wan late afternoon
of some of Hopper's deserted real estate.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Dr. Slick
>
> Permission to use it.
>
Permission to take a dump.
> > >
> > > You've use Italian {oil and vinegar} dressing? Have you ever mixed
> > > it? Same concept. Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
> > > of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
> > > then stretch the rubber band."
> >
> > You still haven't answered my question. Why is it ok to have
> > oils on acrylics and not the other way around?
> > Using your analogy, it shouldn't matter what order you place
> > the oil and vinegar, they will still not mix. Are you saying they
> > will mix, but that you have to put the vinegar down first?
>
> It's not, really... you can get away with one. They don't mix.
> If you let the vinegar dry first... you can put oil on it.
> It's not really all that complex.
>
It's not really all that simple. The oil and vinegar never
really harden, so that's a bad comparison. And you wait for the
acrylics to dry anyhow, so it's not mixing we are looking for, but
adhesion.
> >
> > I take it you do art for a hobby and not a proffession?
>
> Why would you derive that from the above?
>
> > Big difference.
>
> That being?
It's obvious you do it for a hobby, otherwise you would be more
sensitive to issues of time. ETAs and deadlines and such. If your
rent and food depended on it, you might be willing to lower your
standards of what you consider "good enough".
And some of the best art is done quickly anyhow. Many an
artist doesn't know when to stop (overworking a painting).
Slick
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<87hea1i...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> > Permission to use it.
> Permission to take a dump.
We'll assume you get the point. I really had no intention of
arguing with you by the way... I'm in here to talk about art.
...You want to argue about art... we can do that. This... is a trifle inane.
> > > > You've use Italian {oil and vinegar} dressing? Have you ever mixed
> > > > it? Same concept. Acrylics are more flexible than oil though. {As one
> > > > of my professors once told me.} "Paint oil on a rubber band, let it dry,
> > > > then stretch the rubber band."
> > >
> > > You still haven't answered my question. Why is it ok to have
> > > oils on acrylics and not the other way around?
I think this answers it fairly clearly by the way.
> > > Using your analogy, it shouldn't matter what order you place
> > > the oil and vinegar, they will still not mix. Are you saying they
> > > will mix, but that you have to put the vinegar down first?
> >
> > It's not, really... you can get away with one. They don't mix.
> > If you let the vinegar dry first... you can put oil on it.
> > It's not really all that complex.
>
> It's not really all that simple. The oil and vinegar never
> really harden, so that's a bad comparison. And you wait for the
> acrylics to dry anyhow, so it's not mixing we are looking for, but
> adhesion.
Use whatever you like... If you check Winsor & Newton's home page
you'll see that they suggest waiting 6 months {longer with impasto}
before you test a painting to see if it's dry enough to varnish.
This is with oil varnishes that are made to cover oil paint. {They also
mention that grounds that are too absorbent will kill your colors so my
assumption on that one may be wrongish.} We're talking something
that's not made to cover oil paint... isn't really compatible, etc...
I can imagine that the waiting time in this case is longer than anyone's
going to want to wait. Oil's pretty sensitive stuff... one needs to take
at least a modicum of care with it.
> > > I take it you do art for a hobby and not a proffession?
> >
> > Why would you derive that from the above?
> >
> > > Big difference.
> >
> > That being?
>
> It's obvious you do it for a hobby, otherwise you would be more
> sensitive to issues of time. ETAs and deadlines and such. If your
> rent and food depended on it, you might be willing to lower your
> standards of what you consider "good enough".
If you'd not deleted the previous passage you could look back
through it and see where you're wrong.
I'm quite sensitive to issues of time. My rent and food does depend
on it, etc...
I give myself enough time to do a quality job. There's no reason
for me to do otherwise... I think that if you do otherwise... you aren't
doing the job properly... you're simply tossing what "will do" into
your customers lap.
If you quote someone two weeks on something and they decide
that they want it after half that time... that's theirs. You can't work
professionally otherwise.
I don't lower my standards ever. What qualifies as a finished
product may vary if that's what the customer wants. I don't
think I've met anyone yet that has asked me for "schlock".
> And some of the best art is done quickly anyhow. Many an
> artist doesn't know when to stop (overworking a painting).
Some of it is...
Rick Taylor
> In article <87smtmm...@exile.speakeasy.net>, rickt...@speakeasy.net
> says...
>
> > I'm not really that familiar... From a quick search... his stuff looks a bit
>
> You're jerking my leg, right? I assume you
Not at all.
> mean Eddie Hopper? I can't imagine anyone thinking
Yeah.
> Burchfield's works come even close to resembling
> works by Hopper. Burchfield was a romantic who
Have you seen the million and one paintings that hopper did of
houses? There's a lot of similarity... Hoppers are a little better
technically and have that sort of commercial sheen about them...
> had a very unique way of depicting nature and
> his work fits into no easily categorized genre
> that I know of. Perhaps close to symbolist works,
> but that would be a stretch too, IMO.
As I said... I'm not really familiar... I generally pass on that sort
of art. I've only skimmed a few web pages... what I saw looked
fairly similar.
C. Enna
>He also did some, you might say, straight stuff, small-town
>buildings and so on, did he not? Which have a certain
>spookiness that might be related to the wan late afternoon
>of some of Hopper's deserted real estate.
Okay. I concede. We each read into an artist's
works what we want to read. That's why we
have these variances of opinion. Anyhow,
I see your point but it's the whimsical paintings
that Burchfield often struggled with for his
lifetime - going back and re-painting stuff
he'd completed years earlier - that is what
sticks in my mind. (ps-not much sticks there
these days!)
C. Enna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>I assume these varnishes are based on acrylic lacquer (similar to the
>spray paints used on cars) or even an acrylic-enamel rather than a
>latex-type acrylic such as artists' acrylic paint.
My assumption as well. Maybe someone will
take the time to research the subject in
detail. Won't be me though! But I will clue
the person who wishes to do the research
to an excellent web site:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/
WAAC stands for Western Assoc of Art Conservators
C. Enna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>> I've read all the things you have mentioned. And maybe from a
>>practical point of view, acrylics may be acceptable to paint over with
>>oils only because acrylics dry so fast. (Maybe some crazy genius will
>>try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
>
>With the new water-mixable oils this is entirely possible - it says so on
>the brochure!
>
>But water-mixable oils are modified by the removal of that component of
>the oil molecule that makes oil repel water.
In fact, I know of internationally acclaimed
artists who paint in oils over acrylics. Nothing
unusual about it. The other nonsense about
mixing water with oil is just that - so much
nonsense. Thank goodness there are "alkyds
to the rescue" for those determined to mix
things up!
Rick Taylor
> | In article <87smtmm...@exile.speakeasy.net>, rickt...@speakeasy.net
> ce...@noemailever.com (C. Enna):
> | You're jerking my leg, right? I assume you
> | mean Eddie Hopper? I can't imagine anyone thinking
> | Burchfield's works come even close to resembling
> | works by Hopper. Burchfield was a romantic who
> | had a very unique way of depicting nature and
> | his work fits into no easily categorized genre
> | that I know of. Perhaps close to symbolist works,
> | but that would be a stretch too, IMO.
>
> He also did some, you might say, straight stuff, small-town
> buildings and so on, did he not? Which have a certain
> spookiness that might be related to the wan late afternoon
> of some of Hopper's deserted real estate.
Impression a:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues97/may97/burchfield.html
Hopper:
http://nmaa-ryder.si.edu/collections/exhibits/hopper/art.html
After looking around a bit... I see he did do some other stuff.
Dr. Slick
>
> We'll assume you get the point. I really had no intention of
> arguing with you by the way... I'm in here to talk about art.
>
> ...You want to argue about art... we can do that. This... is a trifle inane.
>
It takes two to tango. If this is a stupid argument, then you are
just as stupid as me!
>
> Use whatever you like... If you check Winsor & Newton's home page
> you'll see that they suggest waiting 6 months {longer with impasto}
> before you test a painting to see if it's dry enough to varnish.
>
> This is with oil varnishes that are made to cover oil paint. {They also
> mention that grounds that are too absorbent will kill your colors so my
> assumption on that one may be wrongish.} We're talking something
> that's not made to cover oil paint... isn't really compatible, etc...
> I can imagine that the waiting time in this case is longer than anyone's
> going to want to wait. Oil's pretty sensitive stuff... one needs to take
> at least a modicum of care with it.
>
This was my point, that a big reason why people don't paint
acrylics over oils is that the oils take too long to dry (6 months).
But you can lay down all the acrylics you want, very thickly even, and
paint over it with oils within a day.
I reason this because many people (see previous posts on this
thread) use an acrylic-based varnish for their final coat. This must
adhere somewhat well if it is to protect at all. Which leads me to
believe that you could use acrylics over the dry oils, if you wanted
to, but that it's not very practical time wise.
Maybe some chemist out there can tell us why, if oils and
acrylics are so incompatible, that it is still ok to paint oils over
dry acrylics, but not the other way around?
> >
> > It's obvious you do it for a hobby, otherwise you would be more
> > sensitive to issues of time. ETAs and deadlines and such. If your
> > rent and food depended on it, you might be willing to lower your
> > standards of what you consider "good enough".
>
> If you'd not deleted the previous passage you could look back
> through it and see where you're wrong.
>
> I'm quite sensitive to issues of time. My rent and food does depend
> on it, etc...
>
Are you a part-time or full-time artist? Do you do commissions
for fine art? Or are you an illustrator/commercial artist? Someone
with a day job who sells paintings on the side is not full-time.
> I give myself enough time to do a quality job. There's no reason
> for me to do otherwise... I think that if you do otherwise... you aren't
> doing the job properly... you're simply tossing what "will do" into
> your customers lap.
>
Sometimes this is good enough and prevents you from
spoiling/overworking an otherwise great piece. Maybe if the customer
was there, they would want you to stop earlier than when you think you
should. Do you ever have customers critique your art during the work?
> If you quote someone two weeks on something and they decide
> that they want it after half that time... that's theirs. You can't work
> professionally otherwise.
>
> I don't lower my standards ever. What qualifies as a finished
> product may vary if that's what the customer wants. I don't
> think I've met anyone yet that has asked me for "schlock".
>
Customer standards are rarely the same as yours.
You're not successful or famous enough to have your calendar
filled if you have the luxury of taking as much time as you want on a
painting.
Some people want to have day jobs and paint for a hobby; they
prefer to take their time doing their art. Or lucky people like
Vermeer, who i believe inherited an art gallery, and who took as long
as he wanted on the very few paintings that he did.
Nevertheless, being a professional gets more out of the artist.
Don't get me wrong, i don't believe in being a McDonalds fast-food
artist either: turn down work if you don't feel you have the time.
Garvin Yee
Andrew D
>In article <right-18030...@i172-012.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>
>
>>> I've read all the things you have mentioned. And maybe from a
>>>practical point of view, acrylics may be acceptable to paint over with
>>>oils only because acrylics dry so fast. (Maybe some crazy genius will
>>>try mixing wet oils and acrylics one day, whoa!)
>>
>>With the new water-mixable oils this is entirely possible - it says so on
>>the brochure!
>>
>>But water-mixable oils are modified by the removal of that component of
>>the oil molecule that makes oil repel water.
>
>In fact, I know of internationally acclaimed
>artists who paint in oils over acrylics. Nothing
>unusual about it. The other nonsense about
>mixing water with oil is just that - so much
>nonsense.
No, that's the bit I was referring to. Water-mixable oil CAN be *mixed
with* acrylic.
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<87smtlr...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> > ...You want to argue about art... we can do that. This... is a trifle inane.
>
> It takes two to tango. If this is a stupid argument, then you are
> just as stupid as me!
:} Lets both of us not be stupid then.
> This was my point, that a big reason why people don't paint
> acrylics over oils is that the oils take too long to dry (6 months).
> But you can lay down all the acrylics you want, very thickly even, and
> paint over it with oils within a day.
> I reason this because many people (see previous posts on this
> thread) use an acrylic-based varnish for their final coat. This must
> adhere somewhat well if it is to protect at all. Which leads me to
> believe that you could use acrylics over the dry oils, if you wanted
> to, but that it's not very practical time wise.
> Maybe some chemist out there can tell us why, if oils and
> acrylics are so incompatible, that it is still ok to paint oils over
> dry acrylics, but not the other way around?
:} Check Winsor & Newtons home page.
> > > It's obvious you do it for a hobby, otherwise you would be more
> > > sensitive to issues of time. ETAs and deadlines and such. If your
> > > rent and food depended on it, you might be willing to lower your
> > > standards of what you consider "good enough".
> >
> > If you'd not deleted the previous passage you could look back
> > through it and see where you're wrong.
> >
> > I'm quite sensitive to issues of time. My rent and food does depend
> > on it, etc...
> Are you a part-time or full-time artist? Do you do commissions
> for fine art? Or are you an illustrator/commercial artist? Someone
> with a day job who sells paintings on the side is not full-time.
I work, maybe, 20 hours a day if I can. {Other than time on the net.
{tho' most of the time that's pretty much related.}}
I do "digital" which includes anything from web design to animation,
video editing, graphics, etc... I used to sell paintings {not enough}...
tho', generally, I find that that sort of thing does more to generate
commissioned stuff than anything...
...My quicky resume... further details will have to wait on the web page...
Yourself?
> > I give myself enough time to do a quality job. There's no reason
> > for me to do otherwise... I think that if you do otherwise... you aren't
> > doing the job properly... you're simply tossing what "will do" into
> > your customers lap.
>
> Sometimes this is good enough and prevents you from
> spoiling/overworking an otherwise great piece. Maybe if the customer
> was there, they would want you to stop earlier than when you think you
> should. Do you ever have customers critique your art during the work?
Once in a while...
> You're not successful or famous enough to have your calendar
> filled if you have the luxury of taking as much time as you want on a
> painting.
If I ever have the guts to fill out my tax forms... Maybe I'll forward a
copy of my returns to this group. :}
Really, though... I think success just depends on the person who's
"succeeding". I really don't judge things by how much cash they
make... Successful art to me is art that I like. A successful artist is
an artist whose work I like... I won't consider myself successful until
I've done the artwork I intend to do... yadda...
...Some of my favorite movies didn't make a dime.
What would be "successful" to you?
C. Enna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>>In fact, I know of internationally acclaimed
>>artists who paint in oils over acrylics. Nothing
>>unusual about it. The other nonsense about
>>mixing water with oil is just that - so much
>>nonsense.
>
>No, that's the bit I was referring to. Water-mixable oil CAN be *mixed
>with* acrylic.
Why did you omit the last sentence from my
post when you quoted it? Are you simply in
an argumentative mood and don't want others
to see what I said in total? I wrote:
==============================================
"In fact, I know of internationally acclaimed
artists who paint in oils over acrylics. Nothing
unusual about it. The other nonsense about
mixing water with oil is just that - so much
nonsense. **Thank goodness there are "alkyds
to the rescue" for those determined to mix
things up!**"
=================================================
That last sentence, **highlighted** happens to be
agreeing with your 'water-mixable oil' statement.
That's what the alkyds are, AFAIK.
Rick Taylor
Seeing as this magically bounced yesterday {At least I hope it did...
otherwise you folk have to see it twice...}
The Hopper Burchfield quandry:
Impression a:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues97/may97/burchfield.html
Hopper:
http://nmaa-ryder.si.edu/collections/exhibits/hopper/
--
Dr. Slick
>
> > This was my point, that a big reason why people don't paint
> > acrylics over oils is that the oils take too long to dry (6 months).
> > But you can lay down all the acrylics you want, very thickly even, and
> > paint over it with oils within a day.
> > I reason this because many people (see previous posts on this
> > thread) use an acrylic-based varnish for their final coat. This must
> > adhere somewhat well if it is to protect at all. Which leads me to
> > believe that you could use acrylics over the dry oils, if you wanted
> > to, but that it's not very practical time wise.
>
> > Maybe some chemist out there can tell us why, if oils and
> > acrylics are so incompatible, that it is still ok to paint oils over
> > dry acrylics, but not the other way around?
>
> :} Check Winsor & Newtons home page.
>
Great website, but i didn't see an answer to my question.
Interesting that another poster talked about successfully using
acrylic-based varnishes over oils, and this website doesn't recommend
this apparently. Acrylic-based varnishes are recommended only for
acrylics, not oils.
But hey, artists are supposed to bend the rules, right?
>
> > Are you a part-time or full-time artist? Do you do commissions
> > for fine art? Or are you an illustrator/commercial artist? Someone
> > with a day job who sells paintings on the side is not full-time.
>
> I work, maybe, 20 hours a day if I can. {Other than time on the net.
> {tho' most of the time that's pretty much related.}}
>
I agree that time on the net is actually work in many ways:
research and development, finding work/projects, even "bullsh**ing" on
newsgroups is "work" in a sense.
But this is a far different type of work than having deadlines
for a particular project/customer.
> I do "digital" which includes anything from web design to animation,
> video editing, graphics, etc... I used to sell paintings {not enough}...
> tho', generally, I find that that sort of thing does more to generate
> commissioned stuff than anything...
>
> ...My quicky resume... further details will have to wait on the web page...
>
> Yourself?
>
Laid off radio frequency engineer, part-time tattooist (try
working in a big-time tattoo parlor if you wanna see the need for time
management in the arts), enjoying a recession vacation.
I've always drawn/painted. Most stuff on my website done in
college. Turned down many offers to buy my paintings (especially the
dog), due to emotionally attachment. But i've had them long enough,
and i wanna fund a trip to Egypt. :^)
>
> > You're not successful or famous enough to have your calendar
> > filled if you have the luxury of taking as much time as you want on a
> > painting.
>
> If I ever have the guts to fill out my tax forms... Maybe I'll forward a
> copy of my returns to this group. :}
>
Bad place to admit tax evasion. :/
> Really, though... I think success just depends on the person who's
> "succeeding". I really don't judge things by how much cash they
> make... Successful art to me is art that I like. A successful artist is
> an artist whose work I like... I won't consider myself successful until
> I've done the artwork I intend to do... yadda...
>
> ...Some of my favorite movies didn't make a dime.
>
> What would be "successful" to you?
Everyone has their own definition, as they should. And i
didn't mean to say that success was having a lot of clients and work
and money.
Tell you what, if someone is happy, then they are successful.
No matter who they are, what they do, what titles they have, how many
digits they make, how famous they are, how old they are, how much sex
they have per month, etc...
If you are happy, then you've got everything.
However, sleeping on the sidewalk in the rain may be a bit
uncomfortable for most people, and this will definitely affect your
happiness.
Ok, so "A successful artist is an artist whose work I like..."
But do you like his work enough to pay for it? Are you willing to
support this artist, so that he can buy those expensive art supplies,
pay for his studio and apartment, and feed himself?
You may like the artists work, but unless he had an inheritance
or hit the lottery, he may have to be a computer programmer instead
to pay the bills.
Since art (painting) is not your full-time gig, you have the
luxury of doing it for yourself. Try drawing pictures on people and
you find out quick that a professional artist cares more about what
other people want, NOT his own personal artistic trip. I consider
video and webpage design to be art as well, so if you do work for
others, you probably know what i mean.
Thelonious Monk was the exception to the rule. Few people do
what they want and get paid for it. I hope someday to be one of the
lucky few, nevertheless, :)
GArvin Yee
Rick Taylor
> Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<873clj6...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
> But hey, artists are supposed to bend the rules, right?
Not if they're going to sell the work.
> > > You're not successful or famous enough to have your calendar
> > > filled if you have the luxury of taking as much time as you want on a
> > > painting.
> >
> > If I ever have the guts to fill out my tax forms... Maybe I'll forward a
> > copy of my returns to this group. :}
>
> Bad place to admit tax evasion. :/
Anything but. The IRS and I are on lovely terms...
> If you are happy, then you've got everything.
Yup.
Andrew D
>In article <right-19030...@i204-187.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>
>>>In fact, I know of internationally acclaimed
>>>artists who paint in oils over acrylics. Nothing
>>>unusual about it. The other nonsense about
>>>mixing water with oil is just that - so much
>>>nonsense.
>>No, that's the bit I was referring to. Water-mixable oil CAN be *mixed
>>with* acrylic.
>Why did you omit the last sentence from my
>post when you quoted it? Are you simply in
>an argumentative mood and don't want others
>to see what I said in total?
This is r.a.f. isn't it? Dan seems to have left us so we need to seek out
new people to disagree with.
[snip]
>**Thank goodness there are "alkyds
>to the rescue" for those determined to mix
>things up!**"
Alkyds and water-mixable oils are different beasts...... aren't they?
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) writes:
> > Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<873clj6...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
>
> > But hey, artists are supposed to bend the rules, right?
>
> Not if they're going to sell the work.
>
I was gonna quote C. Enna, but you can ask yourself. Supposedly
many professionals use acrylic varnish over oils.
We're all waiting for you to post some of your art Rick.
Slick
NightMist
>Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<874r5y2...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
>> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) writes:
>> > Rick Taylor <rickt...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<873clj6...@exile.speakeasy.net>...
>>
>> > But hey, artists are supposed to bend the rules, right?
>>
>> Not if they're going to sell the work.
>>
>
> I was gonna quote C. Enna, but you can ask yourself. Supposedly
>many professionals use acrylic varnish over oils.
>
OK.
_Some_ acrylic varnishes are suitable over oils.
The water based variety aren't generally recomended.
The mineral spirit based variety works perfectly well.
http://www.goldenpaints.com/msavar.htm
Is a description of the stuff I use, admitedly over acrylics. I did
varnish a guy's oil painting for him with it (with him hanging over my
shoulder and swearing he was going to buy his own spraybrush). There
were no problems with application and after more than a year there
have so far been no problems with adhesion, bloom or pocketing. Give
it another 50 years and I'll let you know more specificly.
http://www.goldenpaints.com/varnapp.htm
Is a general overview of varnishes and their applications.
Barbara
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
>
> You still haven't answered my question. Why is it ok to have
> oils on acrylics and not the other way around?
Hi,
I can't imagine putting acrylics over oils; even dry oils. It just
wouldn't last, as far as I know. I do have experience putting oil over
acrylic, and that definitely does work. I have a painting I did in art
school 27 years ago, which is acrylic on canvas, but I did do one of the
faces in oil, over gesso and an acrylic underpainting, as I just find
acrylics really frustrating for doing realistic portraiture. Well, it is
still in fine shape, with no damage to the painting at all.
I am curious about the new water-based oil paints, which I haven't tried
yet. What are others' experience with them? Can you recommend any brands?
Lauren
--
THE BLESSED BEE
www.blessedbee.com
samples/subscription info:
in...@blessedbee.com
Dr. Slick
> Hi,
> I can't imagine putting acrylics over oils; even dry oils. It just
> wouldn't last, as far as I know. I do have experience putting oil over
> acrylic, and that definitely does work. I have a painting I did in art
> school 27 years ago, which is acrylic on canvas, but I did do one of the
> faces in oil, over gesso and an acrylic underpainting, as I just find
> acrylics really frustrating for doing realistic portraiture. Well, it is
> still in fine shape, with no damage to the painting at all.
> I am curious about the new water-based oil paints, which I haven't tried
> yet. What are others' experience with them? Can you recommend any brands?
>
This seems to be the common wisdom, but doesn't answer Why? I
think i should post this in a chemistry newgroup instead. I'm just
curious as to why the adhesion of acrylics to dry oils is ok, and not
the other way around. Why does the ORDER of application matter so
much here? (ignoring the longer drying time of oils for a moment).
As another poster has informed me, some acrylic varnishes are
water-based, and some are dissolved with mineral spirits. Any
chemists out there that can tell me how you remove the hydro-phobic
part of the oil molecules so that they are water-based? And can you
still call these oil paints? (you aren't supposed to mix them with
regular oils) And can you use these new water-soluable oils over
acrylics now?
Just very curious.
Slick
C. Enna
says...
> I am curious about the new water-based oil paints, which I haven't tried
>yet. What are others' experience with them? Can you recommend any brands?
As someone who's been painting as long as
you, I can only say of water-soluble oils,
"I bought, I tried, I gave away!"
On the other hand, I continue to use acrylics
interchangeably - and I don't mean mixing
in the same painting - but rather I paint
in both mediums depending on my mood, spirit,
intent, etc etc. And yes, I too have done
a very limited amount of painting with oils
over an otherwise acrylic painting.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"C. Enna" <ce...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3e7b...@news.zianet.com...
> In article <b5dhdv$8j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> says...
>
>
> > I am curious about the new water-based oil paints, which I haven't
tried
> >yet. What are others' experience with them? Can you recommend any brands?
>
> As someone who's been painting as long as
> you, I can only say of water-soluble oils,
>
> "I bought, I tried, I gave away!"
>
oilier than thou gone at a stroke. They are, at least the good ones, at
least as colourfast and buttery as oils.
--
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They
have their exits and their entrances, - Macbeth
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
>> As someone who's been painting as long as
>> you, I can only say of water-soluble oils,
>> "I bought, I tried, I gave away!"
> I too like acrylics, but I love the water soluble oils - all that stench and
> oilier than thou gone at a stroke. They are, at least the good ones, at
> least as colourfast and buttery as oils.
I must say, that I find the smell of oil paints kind of nostalgic... but
am also concerned with using them in my studio, which is near where we
sleep, and know people who have developed sensitivities.... I certainly
don't want that to happen. An artist-run art supply store here in town
recommends one particular brand of water-based oils -- I don't remember
what brand (I'll have to ask). They seem to be the solution, at least for
working in winter. In the summer I can work outdoors, and let them dry in
the garage.
While I do like using acrylics for many things, and rather enjoy their
plastic/ elastic qualities, I like watercolour and oil for their "organic"
qualities. Do the water-based oils still have that quality?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lauren Foster-MacLeod" <dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:b5giol$qkc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
> While I do like using acrylics for many things, and rather enjoy their
> plastic/ elastic qualities, I like watercolour and oil for their "organic"
> qualities. Do the water-based oils still have that quality?
>
available) have been almost impossible to tell from other oils - I say
almost as some very old oils have I have have hardened to a quite different
texture so I can tell them apart!
--
Language such as we should now expect to hear only from the most ignorant
clowns.
- Macaulay sur de Marche
Andrew D
radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren Foster-MacLeod) wrote in message
news:<b5dhdv$8j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> Hi,
>> I can't imagine putting acrylics over oils; even dry oils. It just
>> wouldn't last, as far as I know. I do have experience putting oil over
>> acrylic, and that definitely does work. I have a painting I did in art
>> school 27 years ago, which is acrylic on canvas, but I did do one of the
>> faces in oil, over gesso and an acrylic underpainting, as I just find
>> acrylics really frustrating for doing realistic portraiture. Well, it is
>> still in fine shape, with no damage to the painting at all.
>> I am curious about the new water-based oil paints, which I haven't tried
>> yet. What are others' experience with them? Can you recommend any brands?
>>
>
> This seems to be the common wisdom, but doesn't answer Why? I
>think i should post this in a chemistry newgroup instead. I'm just
>curious as to why the adhesion of acrylics to dry oils is ok, and not
>the other way around.
It is the other way around and your question hads been answered, though
apparently ignored. Oil paint contains oil. Oil repels water.
[snip]
> As another poster has informed me, some acrylic varnishes are
>water-based, and some are dissolved with mineral spirits. Any
>chemists out there that can tell me how you remove the hydro-phobic
>part of the oil molecules so that they are water-based?
Some apparently use a detergent in the oil mix.
> And can you
>still call these oil paints? (you aren't supposed to mix them with
>regular oils) And can you use these new water-soluable oils over
>acrylics now?
Yes - but you can also use regular oil over acrylic - but not acrylic over
oil. You can also mix acrylic with the new water-soluble oils (at least
some of them) but not with regular oil.
> Just very curious.
Hmmm.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > This seems to be the common wisdom, but doesn't answer Why? I
> >think i should post this in a chemistry newgroup instead. I'm just
> >curious as to why the adhesion of acrylics to dry oils is ok, and not
> >the other way around.
>
> It is the other way around and your question hads been answered, though
> apparently ignored. Oil paint contains oil. Oil repels water.
>
Not really. Artists aren't really chemists are they. A bit
foolish of me to ask this NG. Oil repels water, but what if the oil
paint is completely dry? Isn't there very little oil in completely
dried oils?
Slick
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> Not really. Artists aren't really chemists are they. A bit
> foolish of me to ask this NG. Oil repels water, but what if the oil
> paint is completely dry? Isn't there very little oil in completely
> dried oils?
Excuse me cringing at this. My background and training has made me very
conscious of the archival factor in creating art -- that it be made to
last and not deteriorate. How important to you is it that your work last?
Do you feel a responsibility to your cleints (ie. folks who buy your art)
that it last and not fall apart on their walls? (or wherever it's meant to
be displayed)
Speaking from one with some art training, grade 9 chemistry class and a
bit of knowledge from the "School of life", it seems to me that painting
with acrylic over oils is just not a sensible thing to do.
Dr. Slick
>
> Excuse me cringing at this. My background and training has made me very
> conscious of the archival factor in creating art -- that it be made to
> last and not deteriorate. How important to you is it that your work last?
> Do you feel a responsibility to your cleints (ie. folks who buy your art)
> that it last and not fall apart on their walls? (or wherever it's meant to
> be displayed)
>
> Speaking from one with some art training, grade 9 chemistry class and a
> bit of knowledge from the "School of life", it seems to me that painting
> with acrylic over oils is just not a sensible thing to do.
>
Have you ever tried it? I mean acrylics over thoroughly dry
oils? And have you had it "fall apart" on the walls? I've come to
the conclusion that the real reason this is not done is because the
oils take too long to dry. But if the oils are absolutely dry (not
practical), you could get away with it.
Do you agree that oil itself doesn't actually harden, but the
pigments themselves do? So when you paint oil over dry acrylics, you
don't paint oils over water because it's dry. It's more like oils
over plastic. And adhesion is fine.
Acrylics over completely dry oils (read: no oils, only dried
pigment), should adhere in the same way, unless the order of
application makes a difference.
Of course i know what the accepted, sensible thing to do is (the
art police should arrest you if you try acrylics over oils..:), and i
get a bit of pleasure of rocking the boat by questioning the obvious
(this bugs people, because i'm not being "sensible").
I always thought that artists were suppose to question the
accepted norm, the obviously sensible, break new ground, try new
things. I guess i shouldn't stereotype people.
slick
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
(re: painting with acrylics over dried oil paint)
> oils? And have you had it "fall apart" on the walls? I've come to
> the conclusion that the real reason this is not done is because the
> oils take too long to dry. But if the oils are absolutely dry (not
> practical), you could get away with it.
No, I have not tried it. There are many things I have not tried, simply
because I have found other things to do instead. IF I wanted to experiment
with this, then I certainly would. You seem to want to, so go ahead, and
see how it works... and whether it lasts.
> Do you agree that oil itself doesn't actually harden, but the
> pigments themselves do? So when you paint oil over dry acrylics, you
> don't paint oils over water because it's dry. It's more like oils
> over plastic. And adhesion is fine.
Pigments harden? I think they are innert. The oil is the binder, and that
is what firms up and hardens (though not completely). It doesn't really
matter about the pigment.
> Acrylics over completely dry oils (read: no oils, only dried
> pigment), should adhere in the same way, unless the order of
> application makes a difference.
Yes, the order of application makes the difference. Have you ever used
acrylic wall paint over oil-based wall paint? It can be done, but the
acrylic comes off way easier than if you'd used oil over the oil. I know,
because I have done it. The wall must be washed with that nasty T.S.P.,
and a really good gripper primer used... so, perhaps this is what you're
driving at.
In that case, the oils underneath (back to art painting) would need to
be really "lean" and not too fatty. That is the only way I can see things
working. Perhaps you'd need to wash the oil underpainting with T.S.P.
> I always thought that artists were suppose to question the
> accepted norm, the obviously sensible, break new ground, try new
> things. I guess I shouldn't stereotype people.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That is what artschool is for -- experimenting, and
pushing the ticket, so to speak...
Andrew D
>dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren Foster-MacLeod) wrote in message
news:<b5pihf$4th$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>>
>> Excuse me cringing at this. My background and training has made me very
>> conscious of the archival factor in creating art -- that it be made to
>> last and not deteriorate. How important to you is it that your work last?
>> Do you feel a responsibility to your cleints (ie. folks who buy your art)
>> that it last and not fall apart on their walls? (or wherever it's meant to
>> be displayed)
>>
>> Speaking from one with some art training, grade 9 chemistry class and a
>> bit of knowledge from the "School of life", it seems to me that painting
>> with acrylic over oils is just not a sensible thing to do.
>>
>
> Have you ever tried it? I mean acrylics over thoroughly dry
>oils? And have you had it "fall apart" on the walls? I've come to
>the conclusion that the real reason this is not done is because the
>oils take too long to dry. But if the oils are absolutely dry (not
>practical), you could get away with it.
>
> Do you agree that oil itself doesn't actually harden, but the
>pigments themselves do? So when you paint oil over dry acrylics, you
>don't paint oils over water because it's dry. It's more like oils
>over plastic. And adhesion is fine.
> Acrylics over completely dry oils (read: no oils, only dried
>pigment), should adhere in the same way, unless the order of
>application makes a difference.
AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!! If this is just a troll, then it's a frigging
boring one.
Water EVAPORATES from water-based paints. It's gone, disappeared, shifted,
vamoosed! What's left is a polymert film. Oil oxidizes, it stays put. It
changes in nature (hardens) but it's still there - the remaining film is
oil-based and regardless of the chemistry of the oxidation process, the
prevailing understanding is that this paint film is still not conducive to
over-painting with water-based medium. The oil hasn't evaporated (the
turps has).
You're underlying assertion is that once dry, acrylics and oils are
identical - that is just plain stupid. Are acrylic and gouache the same
too? After all, they are both just paints and you can paint acrylic over
gouache so they are obviously identical. So, I should be able to wash my
dry acrylic paint off with a little water. Given that you've established
that oils and acrylics are identical, once dry, I should therefore be able
to wash all the dry oil paint off my canvas since clearly, it is just the
same as gouache too!!!
Oh my God!!!! It just rained and all the paint washed off my house.
Bugger! I just knew the guy at the paint shop was lying when he said
oil-based enamels were waterproof!
> Of course i know what the accepted, sensible thing to do is (the
>art police should arrest you if you try acrylics over oils..:), and i
>get a bit of pleasure of rocking the boat by questioning the obvious
>(this bugs people, because i'm not being "sensible").
No. It's because you state stupidities as if they were facts. Like "the
oil doesn't actually harden, the pigment does" when you clearly don't know
much about the chemistry of paints at all.
On one hand, you're asking seemingly simple questions about something of
which you admit complete ignorance but on the other you make bold
statments as if you are entirely familiar with the chemistry involved -
and then you get it wrong.
The temptation is to just ignore your trolling but it would be a shame if
a beginner actually believed half of the "facts" you drop throughout your
posts.
Andrew D
<artgor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Not to take sides here Slick and I'm far from being a purist or a member of
>the art police but yes, I've tried it. I was in college and had started an
>oil that was going nowhere and being a supreme procrastinator, realized I
>had a final critique the next day and - well - accidentally, I forgot to
>actually do anything for the final critique. I plopped on a bunch of acrylic
>over the (dried) oil I had worked on previously and it turned into a
>wonderful painting. I still have it. It peels all the time. If you touch it,
>it will flake off. I have, it has. It taught me that if you do get a good
>painting using this method you have a piece of worthless garbage because no
>one wants to buy a semi-painting. As time goes on it becomes less and less
>acrylic and you don't have to touch it. The acrylic will flake and peel even
>if it is hung and untouched. If you plan on keeping it don't do this. If you
>are late for a deadline and it won't be sold, suit yourself. But I GUARANTEE
>that within 5 years the painting will be unrecognizable. And worthless.
I can see it now. He's going to suggest that your oil painting musn't have
been "really dry" so it probably still had oil in it.
Didn't you know, the oil gets up and leaves when the painting is dry??!!!
All that's left is hard pigment - it's exactly the same as acrylic once
the water has all dried up. In fact, it is just like pastel. Just
"hardened" pigment. Try it. Just rub your finger over any really dry
painting and see how the pigment just blends like a fresh pastel painting.
Amazing isn't it? **Don't do this at the museum - it drives the
conservators mad trying to smudge all the pigments back into place!).
The beauty of this is that if you are bothered by the dust from sticks of
pastel, but like the finish of pastels, all you have to do is choose any
sort of paint (old household enamel will do) then just wait till the work
is dry (really dry) then get your fingers dirty shoving all the pigment
around to your heart's content! I'm surprised more people don't do this.
And don't think for one minute that varnish will make a difference.
Varnish doesn't even have pigment so we pay all that money and waste all
that time and effort on something which, once dry, doesn't even exist!!!!
It's just air!!!
Dr. Slick
>
> I can see it now. He's going to suggest that your oil painting musn't have
> been "really dry" so it probably still had oil in it.
>
Of course thiw would be the case, especially because he was in a
hurry and couldn't wait 6 months or so.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> > Have you ever tried it? I mean acrylics over thoroughly dry
> >oils? And have you had it "fall apart" on the walls? I've come to
> >the conclusion that the real reason this is not done is because the
> >oils take too long to dry. But if the oils are absolutely dry (not
> >practical), you could get away with it.
> >
> > Do you agree that oil itself doesn't actually harden, but the
> >pigments themselves do? So when you paint oil over dry acrylics, you
> >don't paint oils over water because it's dry. It's more like oils
> >over plastic. And adhesion is fine.
> > Acrylics over completely dry oils (read: no oils, only dried
> >pigment), should adhere in the same way, unless the order of
> >application makes a difference.
>
> AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!! If this is just a troll, then it's a frigging
> boring one.
>
Seems to be keeping you busy.
> Water EVAPORATES from water-based paints. It's gone, disappeared, shifted,
> vamoosed! What's left is a polymert film. Oil oxidizes, it stays put. It
> changes in nature (hardens) but it's still there - the remaining film is
> oil-based and regardless of the chemistry of the oxidation process, the
> prevailing understanding is that this paint film is still not conducive to
> over-painting with water-based medium. The oil hasn't evaporated (the
> turps has).
>
And here's some of your contrary statements in your other post:
"> Didn't you know, the oil gets up and leaves when the painting is
dry??!!!
> All that's left is hard pigment - it's exactly the same as acrylic once
> the water has all dried up. In fact, it is just like pastel. Just
> "hardened" pigment.
So i don't really know where you stand. Are the oils still
there when the painting is dry? I believe so, which is probably why
this isn't done, because even when "dry" the oil is still there.
>
> > Of course i know what the accepted, sensible thing to do is (the
> >art police should arrest you if you try acrylics over oils..:), and i
> >get a bit of pleasure of rocking the boat by questioning the obvious
> >(this bugs people, because i'm not being "sensible").
>
> No. It's because you state stupidities as if they were facts. Like "the
> oil doesn't actually harden, the pigment does" when you clearly don't know
> much about the chemistry of paints at all.
>
And you do? Can you explain the chemistry of how oil paints
harden? Didn't think so.
Does oil actually harden? No it does not. I will state that as
a FACT. And i don't claim to know, otherwise i wouldn't ask,
wiseacre.
> On one hand, you're asking seemingly simple questions about something of
> which you admit complete ignorance but on the other you make bold
> statments as if you are entirely familiar with the chemistry involved -
> and then you get it wrong.
>
If you think stating that oil does not harden is a "bold
statement", then so be it.
> The temptation is to just ignore your trolling but it would be a shame if
> a beginner actually believed half of the "facts" you drop throughout your
> posts.
>
Wouldn't that be horrible if a beginner actually took advice from
a nobody on a shi**y little newsgroup, going against everything the
books/instructors told them. Horror be horrors, their paintings won't
last. Paranoid?
And I'm not dropping "facts", i'm asking WHY? Is this a crime?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe a beginner would want to know why
as well?
Hey, i'm past being afraid to ask questions. It's a cliche, but
the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
Ok, folks, you have convinced me why this isn't done: Oil paints
never really "dry", the oil is there for a _really_ long time.
Whereas acrylics actually really dry out, no water left. I'll buy
this explaination. Gee, no wonder no one does this. :)
Sorry to ruffle your feathers a bit.
Slick
C. Enna
says...
>Yes, the order of application makes the difference. Have you ever used
>acrylic wall paint over oil-based wall paint? It can be done, but the
>acrylic comes off way easier than if you'd used oil over the oil. I know,
>because I have done it. The wall must be washed with that nasty T.S.P.,
>and a really good gripper primer used... so, perhaps this is what you're
>driving at.
As one who has had some experience along these
lines, of painting water-based over oil paints,
I would emphasize the need for that bonding
coat. There are products that somehow neutralize
the effect of the oil base and allow overpainting
with water base. The product I prefer sells
under the trade name KILZ. I've mentioned it in
this forum before. KILZ comes in both water-based (KILZ2)
and oil-based formulations. I much prefer the oil-based
for priming over oil paints.
Now, would I use KILZ for my art work?
Not if I'm thinking of re-painting
an acrylic over a previous oil painting. And
surely not for ANY painting I intended to
one day market. KILZ is manufactured for
commercial painting uses - not for art uses.
That having been said...
I HAVE used KILZ for re-priming old
acrylic paintings before repainting in either
oil or acrylic. In fact I really like the effect
the KILZ gives in such recycled cases as opposed
to re-priming with acrylic gesso. These paintings
are ones I've used for my own purposes and I
would never sell anything with such an unorthodox
construction. For example - I have several
painted canvases that ornament (outdoors) the front of
my residence/studio - as eye cathers. And they
are now several years old and have stood up
well to weathering although they are on the
north side of the house and partly sheltered
under the roof eaves (overhang).
Andrew D
[snip]
> And here's some of your contrary statements in your other post:
>"> Didn't you know, the oil gets up and leaves when the painting is
>dry??!!!
>> All that's left is hard pigment - it's exactly the same as acrylic once
>> the water has all dried up. In fact, it is just like pastel. Just
>> "hardened" pigment.
Welcome to sarcasm Doc.
Dr. Slick
> In article <1d15af91.03032...@posting.google.com>,
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > And here's some of your contrary statements in your other post:
>
> >"> Didn't you know, the oil gets up and leaves when the painting is
> >dry??!!!
> >> All that's left is hard pigment - it's exactly the same as acrylic once
> >> the water has all dried up. In fact, it is just like pastel. Just
> >> "hardened" pigment.
>
> Welcome to sarcasm Doc.
>
It's a bit hard to tell sarcasm from someone who doesn't really
know what they are talking about.
Dr. Slick