Oil painting vs acrylic
Peter Brooks
times, so could this be, but that is not my intention. I just wonder why
anybody should wish to paint in oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
appear identical (or very different if desired) without the mess, smell
and long drying times. The results are also flexible so don't crack and
you only need a simple one coat preparation to make almost anything a
usable surface. You can apply acrylic with air brush, brush, palette knife,
fingers, toes or whatever.
So, apart from snobbish references to old masters, why learn to paint in
oil? I think oil is more expensive too.
I know that it would be possible to have a similar thread on why watercolours
rather than acrylic, but, though one can apply arylic to appear like watercolour
it doesn't have quite the same properties.
One argument is that acrylic is difficult to clean from brushes if left to
dry, but laziness in cleaning brushes in not really an argument against a
medium.
Peter Brooks
Itza Joqual
> I just wonder why
>anybody should wish to paint in oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>appear identical (or very different if desired) without the mess, smell
>and long drying times.
It is precisely because oils DON'T dry quickly that they are much easier to
master than acrylics. Most artists will agree that watercolor is the most
difficult medium to master, and acrylics are a water based medium. So,
acrylics fall somewhere between oils and watercolors on the learning
curve. With oils, you can wipe the canvas nearly clean the following day
after a day of painting in which you did nothing right. With acrylics, you
can also start over, but not by wiping the canvas almost clean. With
watercolors, you just throw away the previous work and start over from
scratch (unless you didn't use a staining hue, in which case the paper
may hold up to an under-water scrubbing in the tub).
--
********************* 1845 - 1995 ****************************
*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
**************************************************************************
Andy Pearlman
>Just as the drawing vs oil painting thread seemed to be fairly heated at
>anybody should wish to paint in oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>appear identical (or very different if desired) without the mess, smell
>you only need a simple one coat preparation to make almost anything a
>usable surface. You can apply acrylic with air brush, brush, palette knife,
>fingers, toes or whatever.
Well, as someone who uses oils, here's my reasons:
I don't make messes. If Degas can paint in a tuxedo...
I like the smell and feel of oils, especially under the brush. Acrylics just
feel artificial to me. And this is speaking as someone who started with
acrylics.
The amount of effort required to get certain luminous glazes is prohibitively
long - and it is difficult to change one's mind with acrylics. I like the long
drying times, because I do change my mind. I can also speed up the drying
process with liquin, which knocks it down to a day or so.
If I mix up too much paint, I coat it with oil and leave it alone. It will
remain usable.
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
Deus Ex Machina found to be Gerbil in a Wheel.
Itza Joqual
>If I mix up too much paint, I coat it with oil and leave it alone. It will
>remain usable.
>Andy
Saving Oil Paint:
Put the palette in the deep-freeze. It'll be as fresh
as when last used when thawed out. Since my pallete is a mess
after each painting session, I scrape up the un-contaminated
globs that remain (stuff worth saving) and put it on a clean palette
covered with plastic cling-wrap before placing it in the freezer
compartment of my fridge. Works great for me. Keeps for months
if necessary.
MrTay
>I just wonder why anybody should wish to paint in
>oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>appear identical
I don't believe it is true that acrylic can duplicate oil in every case. I
have painted extensively in both acrylics and oils and find there are
subtle, and not so subtle, differences between the two. Oil, in my book,
carries a much deeper transparency, allowing light to reflect through
multiple layers of color, bounce off the substrate, and travel back thru
those layers - creating color depth I have never seen in acrylic work. I
believe (though I possess no scientific proof) that acrylic, even when
thinned extensively with acrylic medium or water, does not contain the
same subtle qualities of transparency when dry - it seems to have an
element of opacity in even the cleanest layering. Perhaps there is a
chemical engineer out there who can shed some "light" on this.
Also, as Itza points out, slow drying time can be a huge plus.. not a
minus. I work on paintings over extended periods of time. Slow drying
times allow me to leave a piece for a while and still work with moveable
paint. I'm not into subtle blending, but oil gives far greater flexiblity
to create very fine blends (mainly because of drying time). And, I
believe, oil is the choice for transparent glazes, if you're into that.
Finally, I just like the way oil "moves"... really, well, "oily" in a way
acrylics are not. In acrylic, I've used gel mediums, gel/ water mixes,
regular medium, gloss medium etc.... but acrylic is just not the same...
oil and water are two vastly different substances.
Not to sound like I'm bashing acrylic, or your preference for it. It's a
good medium in it's own right... but a different medium.
>though one can apply acrylic to appear like watercolour
>it doesn't have quite the same properties.
Same fer oil and acrylic.
Peter, it sounds like you haven't done much work in oil ("why learn to
paint in
oil"). I'd say give it a shot and you'll notice the differences. I was
once "strictly acrylic" myself, but I gave oil a try... and have never
gone back.
Cheers
MrTay
Itza Joqual
>Peter, it sounds like you haven't done much work in oil ("why learn to
>paint in
>oil"). I'd say give it a shot and you'll notice the differences. I was
>once "strictly acrylic" myself, but I gave oil a try... and have never
>gone back.
>
>Cheers
>MrTay
Not to display my age, but I began painting in oils because
acrylix were virtually unknown at the time. Over the intervening
moments, I have produced almost an equal number of works
in both mediums (although I work in multiple other mediums too).
You just have to use both the water-based and oil-based to
learn the distinctive characteristics for yourself, as applied to
what it is you are doing/trying to accomplish. There is no other
way. You can only learn so much from books or watching others
work. In the end, you have to DO IT.
Persistence is another BIG factor in learning to manipulate any
medium to get the end results you expect.
Peter Smitt
>From: it...@mix.com (Itza Joqual)
>Subject: Re: Oil painting vs acrylic
>Date: 17 Jul 1995 12:29:50 GMT
>In article <3ud43a$b...@hpwin055.uksr.hp.com>, pe...@pwd.hp.com says...
>> I just wonder why
>>anybody should wish to paint in oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>>appear identical (or very different if desired) without the mess, smell
>>and long drying times.
>It is precisely because oils DON'T dry quickly that they are much easier to
>master than acrylics. Most artists will agree that watercolor is the most
>difficult medium to master, and acrylics are a water based medium. So,
>acrylics fall somewhere between oils and watercolors on the learning
>curve. With oils, you can wipe the canvas nearly clean the following day
>after a day of painting in which you did nothing right. With acrylics, you
[...]
Indeed! I must say that I never tried acrylic, but I have done a lot in
watercolor and I know that that is absolutely not the technique for me,
and therefore neither acrylics will be; I'm a slow and laborious painter,
constantly correcting my paintings and I like to be able to mix my paint
also when it is on the canvas. Oil painting is the technique for me, and the
smell, well, I really like it!
B.Attah
Peter Brooks <pe...@pwd.hp.com> wrote:
>Just as the drawing vs oil painting thread seemed to be fairly heated at
>anybody should wish to paint in oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>appear identical (or very different if desired) without the mess, smell
>and long drying times.
I think it depends on your style. For instance, if you want to paint with
a heavy impastose, expressionistic style, you are better off with
acrylic. I think it odd that people like Leon Kossoff and Frank Auerbach
paint in oils. Certain kinds of precisely drawn styles also work well
in acrylic, but the styles that oils are particularly good for (that
involve delicate modelling and subtle blending) are utterly unattainable
in acrylic. I have never seen a painting in acrylic by any artist that
could match oil in this role. As for acrylics looking *identical* to oils
in paintings - it has never happened. There is a very distinct acrylic
look.
> The results are also flexible so don't crack and
>you only need a simple one coat preparation to make almost anything a
>usable surface. You can apply acrylic with air brush, brush, palette knife,
>fingers, toes or whatever.
>
I paint in oils. I have no desire EVER to paint with an air brush.
>So, apart from snobbish references to old masters, why learn to paint in
>oil? I think oil is more expensive too.
>
There's not much difference in cost, from what I've noticed.
>I know that it would be possible to have a similar thread on why watercolours
>rather than acrylic, but, though one can apply arylic to appear like watercolour
>it doesn't have quite the same properties.
>
>One argument is that acrylic is difficult to clean from brushes if left to
>dry, but laziness in cleaning brushes in not really an argument against a
>medium.
>
The way acrylics blend (or, rather, don't) is a compelling argument against
the medium, as far as I'm concerned.
>Peter Brooks
>
--
==============================================================================
Bruce Attah. |
B.A...@wlv.ac.uk |
==============================================================================
Itza Joqual
> As for acrylics looking *identical* to oils
>in paintings - it has never happened. There is a very distinct acrylic
>look.
I challenge that statement. Even I, the artist, cannot tell whether my
paintings were done in acrylic or oil since the end result is virtually
identical--surface, effect, color, everything. I have to be certain to
write on the reverse side what I used so that later if I decide to
modify I know what I used.
Margery Cohen
Face it, painting with acrylic is painting with plastic. It's sort of a
disgusting medium. Oil is like homemade mayonnaise, acrylic is like
Miracle Whip. The only reason I can see using acrylics is that it is
odorless. A friend of mine with kidney problems has had to give up
working in oils, She couldn't stand using acrylics, so now she is using
egg tempera.
I paint in oils, I love the organicness of them and I mix the paint with
several different emulsifiers, some of which dry overnight. I could never
get the quality results that I get with acrylic.
Margery Cohen
--
Peter Brooks
agree with them all (I have seen acrylic used where it gives exactly the
effect of oil, even in the style of the Old Masters), they have given
me a number or reasons to try oil. Particularly the feel or it, though
I doubt that there would be much difference using a palette knife.
I rather like the idea of the permanence of acrylic. When I have been
tempted to erase a complete picture, I have generally regretted it. It
has usually been more rewarding to take the extra effort and fix the
problems.
I don't know if I will have the patience to paint so slowly, though. I
like to get down, at least, key areas at once and then build on them
dry later if necessary. I haven't felt the need to make wet on wet
colour adjustments later on. It seems that I ougth to try though.
On the subject of the smell, there is a range of water soluble oils that
have come out very recently that ought to deal with this problem. I have
seen them advertised in 'The Artist', but haven't managed to find any in
stock yet.
Peter Brooks
monty Kane
: effect of oil, even in the style of the Old Masters), they have given
larger quantity of pigment that the same amount of the emulsions that
acrylics are made from. Supposedly the polymers are inferior binders -
they get saturated with pigment faster, and the colors suffer. I'm
surprised nobody's mentioned this here - there must be people out there
who know more about this than I do! I'm just spitting back stuff I've
read. It's got the ring of truth, though - oil glazes look like they have
light caught in them sometimes - I've never seen acrylic colors that
compared with oils. (Just one guy's opinion, obviously.)
: On the subject of the smell, there is a range of water soluble oils that
: have come out very recently that ought to deal with this problem. I have
Yeah, there are always the health problems. Just about any art
materials will do you in eventually; some will get you quicker than
others. If you only use linseed oil to change the consistency of your
paint, and clean your brushes with baby oil and soap, you can get around
using solvents altogether (then all you have to do is develop a tolerance
for cadmium, and you'll be fine). I tried it for a while, but eventually I
decided in favor of liquin over long life. I'd be interested in hearing
people's experiences with the water-based oil paints, though.
(e-mail welcome)
Monty
Gary Bag
I prefer to paint in oils because I often need a night's sleep to fully
develop a passage and I prefer to work with wet paint. I use acrylics only
when I want to work on undercoatings or in a watercolor technique.
Gary
Thomas Morphis
oils, and in fact can be mixed with regular oil paints and mediums (to a
certain percentage), yet they clean up with soap and water. Sounds like
the best of both worlds!
Thomas
Itza Joqual
>I don't know if I will have the patience to paint so slowly, though. I
>like to get down, at least, key areas at once and then build on them
>dry later if necessary. I haven't felt the need to make wet on wet
>colour adjustments later on. It seems that I ougth to try though.
You can adjust oil paints to dry quickly, but it will result in some
sacrifice of permanence or integrity of the finished product. Most
artists working today seem to have little regard for the archival nature
of their work, immediate results being of greater importance.
They just want to experience the thrill without enduring the pain.
Many of the new paint formulations designed to circumvent the
toxic hazards of traditional tried and true materials are suspect,
in my opinion. On the other hand, if one trusts in the reputation
of paint manufacturers, you might rightly assume that the products
advertised as "professional artist quality" are chemically and physically
compatible with the archival standards. I would never make that
assumption myself.
When I begin a plein air painting, I usually want to work quickly to get
the scene down before light and shadow change too much. Therefore
I use accelerating agents in my pallete blends--Liquin, cobalt napthenate,
and the pigments known to be more reactive (dry to the touch more
quickly). I also try to paint these initial passages (underpainting) very
thinly, working on building things up later in the studio, or back the
next day on-site.
B.Attah
Itza Joqual <it...@mix.com> wrote:
>In article <3ugspd$5...@ccub.wlv.ac.uk>, cs1...@ccub.wlv.ac.uk says...
>
>> As for acrylics looking *identical* to oils
>>in paintings - it has never happened. There is a very distinct acrylic
>>look.
>
>I challenge that statement. Even I, the artist, cannot tell whether my
>paintings were done in acrylic or oil since the end result is virtually
>identical--surface, effect, color, everything. I have to be certain to
>write on the reverse side what I used so that later if I decide to
>modify I know what I used.
>********************* 1845 - 1995 ****************************
>*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
>*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
>**************************************************************************
>
I considered the possibility that I was wrong about this. Perhaps my prior
knowledge that a painting was executed in oils led me to imagine I saw a
difference. So I went and had a look at some old paintings of mine, some
done in oils, others in acrylic. I came to the conclusion that oil paintings
and acrylic paintings can be told apart because (a) oil has a certain glowing
interior, while acrylics are cloudy, (b) oil retains a more exact impression
of the brush stroke, and (c) oils and acrylics blend differently.
I suspect that, apart from the blending, one could make oils and acrylics
resemble each other more than they do, but what would be the point? Certain
styles of painting would bring the differences to the fore, while others
would emphasise the similarities.
BTW Anyone use those Alkyd colours that Winsor & Newton make? I used some
a while back, and thought they were quite good, but still less pliant than oil.
Alkyd colours have many of the advantages of acrylics, but don't
dry as fast, so they can be worked in a manner similar to oils (indeed,
you can use turps and linseed oil &c with them).
Lynn S.
>>I just wonder why anybody should wish to paint in
>>oils when acrylic can produce pictures that
>>appear identical
>
I
>have painted extensively in both acrylics and oils and find there are
>subtle, and not so subtle, differences between the two.
I have always worked in acrylic until the past year. No one has ever
assumed my paintings were acrylic, they are always surprised to find out
that they are not oil. I do a lot of fine blending, but I do it with a
semi-dry brush and a light touch. It is difficult to tell how the effect
is achieved without close examination, the resulting product is very
similar to fine oil rendering. Ironically, it is the fast drying nature
of the paint that allows me to blend finely and to correct mistakes.
Instead of wiping paint off the canvas (what a mess!), I can precisely
cover the area I wish to change, almost instantly. I blend by adding
thin layers of subtle color variation.
What I am finding as I start to work with oils is that what I have been
doing is a hell of a lot of work, and can be done much easier in oils.
Although, I do lose some control becuase they are so wet. I will probably
work with both mediums, alternating, because I have a terrible reaction
to turpentines (4 hour long headaches and dizziness). I couldn't use oils
on a permanent basis.
As far as how the surface appears when finished, I think that acrylics
have their own quality and I like how they look. You can make oils appear
matt and the colors flat if you thin them out too much (unless you use
the right medium), acrylics seem to hold up better when thinned. I don't
think oils have anything over acrylics as far as richness of color or
depth is concerned, unless they are used with oil and varnish mediums and
built up in layers, then they can't be beat.
Itza Joqual
>Which brings me to the questions:
>Is it just that easy? Aside from the money, to jump into oils? Or are
>there transitional problems?
I would say the problems would ensue if you were going to jump the
other direction.
>Can I use the same brushes?
Again, the answer would be "not a good idea" if you were
adapting oil brushes to acrylics. But many artists use the
artificial sables for oil work. I still prefer hog, squirrel, or
whatever "natural" bristles for oil work, but use the nylon
"sable" too.
Actually, I have three distinct "collections" of brushes.
Acrylic, oil, and watercolor. I "never" use my watercolor
brushes for anything else. But the other brushes I sometimes
crossover with.
Itza Joqual
> I came to the conclusion that oil paintings
>and acrylic paintings can be told apart because (a) oil has a certain glowing
>interior, while acrylics are cloudy, (b) oil retains a more exact impression
>of the brush stroke, and (c) oils and acrylics blend differently.
Well, at least I know someone to turn to next time I forget to write
what I used on the back.
You might ask why I use both oil and acrylic if the finished product
ends up looking so much alike that I can't tell them apart? The
answer is that I use oils for the subjects that I foresee as being
masterpieces--I want to labor more intensely over them.
The acrylics I use for subjects that are more experimental, less
serious, or political statements, and because I want to get them done
quickly for any number of reasons.
--
Mou10man
plastic wrap. Just cover well and leave them. However, I rarely waited
more than a week to get back to that palette. Bonnie
Mou10man
brushes are terrible for oils. Bonnie
Miller Kendal L
Itza Joqual <it...@mix.com> wrote:
>In article <3ugspd$5...@ccub.wlv.ac.uk>, cs1...@ccub.wlv.ac.uk says...
>
>> As for acrylics looking *identical* to oils
>>in paintings - it has never happened. There is a very distinct acrylic
>>look.
>
>I challenge that statement. Even I, the artist, cannot tell whether my
>paintings were done in acrylic or oil since the end result is virtually
>identical--surface, effect, color, everything. I have to be certain to
>write on the reverse side what I used so that later if I decide to
>modify I know what I used.
Personally, I ALWAYS recognize a painting done in acrylic... Which worries
me. I have started in acrylics because of ease of use... (Well, not SO
easy, I do battle daily with my little plant atomizer against deathly
Louisiana heat drying up my paints in minutes) Now I am wondering all
about this thing called oil painting, mainly because I have an obsession
with earth tones and dark painting, something I have really never seen
that well in acrylics. I haven't personally achieved what I am looking
for, but I have just started into this world called painting and am
busy learning technique. I always figured that when I feel satisfied
that I have gone beyond lame beginner that I could switch over to oils
and give it a try.
Which brings me to the questions:
Is it just that easy? Aside from the money, to jump into oils? Or are
there transitional problems?
Can I use the same brushes?
Wondering...
KLM
Wray Kephart
X Can I use the same brushes?
No, acrylic paint will dry out 'hair' brushes, use nylon or other
manmade material.
Kephart
Student
> In article <3ui9a1$p...@hpwin055.uksr.hp.com>, pe...@pwd.hp.com says...
>
> You can adjust oil paints to dry quickly, but it will result in some
> sacrifice of permanence or integrity of the finished product. Most
> artists working today seem to have little regard for the archival nature
> of their work, immediate results being of greater importance.
>
As an aside, why are artists, almost uniquely, expected to be concerned
that the products they manufacture be capable of lasting hundreds of years?
I say: use any combination of materials you like and offer a three year
return-to-base guarantee!
--
This mail is posted from a terminal accessible to students and staff
of the University of Wolverhampton.
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the University
J. Link
then wipe out the high lights to reveal the under white of the canvas. I know
you can do this with oil paints My question is can you do it with Acrylics
and I need to know quickly as a friend wants to do it for a demonstration
and we hate to waste a canvas. I am sure this can be done but she fears
that the paint will adhere to the gelatin base on the canvas. Has
anyone tried it????
Student (@mail.wlv.ac.uk) wrote:
--
Jackie Link - Fremont, California
jrl...@netcom.com
Mark Vinsel
wrote:
>
> As an aside, why are artists, almost uniquely, expected to be concerned
> that the products they manufacture be capable of lasting hundreds of years?
> I say: use any combination of materials you like and offer a three year
> return-to-base guarantee!
>
I take care that my work be as permanent as possible because the only real
test of greatness is the acid test of time. My ego demands that I give
myself more of a chance than to rely on today's critics and temporal
tastes. I wouldn't expect to be popularly acclaimed in a culture intrigued
by OJ, Rush, and reruns, so I make my work last so I can have confidence
that if people get a clue someday they may appreciate it.
I am very thankful that many of the artists I like cared too, so that now
years or centuries later I can see their work. I wonder what work I'll
never see because the artist didn't care.
An important concept as we attempt to sustain our species is that there is
much in common across broad stretches of time or across geographical or
cultural boundaries, much that is timeless in its import to the human
condition. For instance, Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
If you think your work is only valid or valuable for three or ten years,
you need not make it last any longer.
Mark Vinsel
ma...@farallon.com
Visit my gallery: http://spider.lanminds.com/local/vinnie/GALLERY.HTML
Bruce Attah
Vinsel) wrote:
~> In article <-25079513...@134.220.35.5>, @mail.wlv.ac.uk (Student)
~> wrote:
~> >
~>
~> > As an aside, why are artists, almost uniquely, expected to be concerned
~> > that the products they manufacture be capable of lasting hundreds of
years?
~> > I say: use any combination of materials you like and offer a three year
~> > return-to-base guarantee!
~> >
~>
~> ...My ego demands that I give
~> myself more of a chance than to rely on today's critics and temporal
~> tastes...
Good answer.
~> I am very thankful that many of the artists I like cared too, so that now
~> years or centuries later I can see their work.
So am I.
~> For instance, Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
Ah! but there is no evidence that Shakespeare regarded his MSs as precious
things to be preserved over time. Quite the contrary, in fact.
~> If you think your work is only valid or valuable for three or ten years,
~> you need not make it last any longer.
Quite a lot of early twentieth century modernist art was created with
little apparent thought for posterity, and yet it has survived. The
reason being
simply that people thought it worth preserving.
On the other hand, even your best efforts to ensure that your work is durable
cannot guarantee that it will not fall victim to changes in taste. Think of
all those statues of Stalin! Or, consider the Lawrence Alma-Tadema painting
that sold not so long ago for nearly $2m: it had been recovered some years
before from a rubbish skip.
~> Mark Vinsel
~> ma...@farallon.com
~>
~> Visit my gallery: http://spider.lanminds.com/local/vinnie/GALLERY.HTML
Some extra points:
1. If your work is valued highly, but fugitive, it creates jobs for
conservationists. You've done your bit for the unemployment problem!
2. Is what you want to preserve the object itself, or its content? Perhaps
you will not mind if the object is destroyed and replaced by another that
carries your intentions identically.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ross Green
>ma...@farallon.com (Mark Vinsel) wrote:
>>For instance, Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
>Ah! but there is no evidence that Shakespeare regarded his
>MSs as precious things to be preserved over time. Quite the
>contrary, in fact.
Whack! whack! Another hatchet job from B. Attah! Here is the
relevant part of the original posting, (quite eloquent I thought):
>>An important concept as we attempt to sustain our species is
>>that there is much in common across broad stretches of time
>>or across geographical or cultural boundaries, much that is
>>timeless in its import to the human condition. For instance,
>>Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
Obviously, he wasn't talking about Shakespeare's "manuscripts"...
This is what Shakespeare thought about the permanence of his
work:
-Sonnet 55-
Not marble nor the gilded monuments
Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme,
But you shall shine more bright in these contents
Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity.
Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
Even in the eyes of all posterity
That wear this world out to the ending doom.
So, till the judgement that yourself arise,
You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.
Mark Vinsel wrote:
>>If you think your work is only valid or valuable for three or
>>ten years, you need not make it last any longer.
This is an interesting topic. I think of paintings as having "quality
of life," just like people, i.e., simple longevity doesn't necessarily
mean high quality of life experience.
So, the works of someone like Franz Kline, for example, whose
paintings are now falling apart, have to be taken for what they are:
beautiful works that may not be here 500 years from now. (Kline
himself died fairly young! 1910-1962.)
(On the other hand, as part of the "game of art," why not make
paintings as permanent as possible?)
William Blake's famous lines on time and space express the power
of immediacy:
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-Ross
Bruce Attah
~> B.A...@wlv.ac.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
~>
~> >ma...@farallon.com (Mark Vinsel) wrote:
~>
~> >>For instance, Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
~>
~> >Ah! but there is no evidence that Shakespeare regarded his
~> >MSs as precious things to be preserved over time. Quite the
~> >contrary, in fact.
~>
~> Whack! whack! Another hatchet job from B. Attah! Here is the
~> relevant part of the original posting, (quite eloquent I thought):
~>
~> >>An important concept as we attempt to sustain our species is
~> >>that there is much in common across broad stretches of time
~> >>or across geographical or cultural boundaries, much that is
~> >>timeless in its import to the human condition. For instance,
~> >>Shakespeare's work is relevant today.
~>
~> Obviously, he wasn't talking about Shakespeare's "manuscripts"...
But the manuscript might be seen as the equivalent as the physical
object that is the painting, while the text as the art object the
manuscript transmits, equivalent to the art object that the physical
painting transmits. If, somehow, the art object can be preserved
and transmitted after the physical object is destroyed, the right
kind of lastingness is achieved.
~> This is what Shakespeare thought about the permanence of his
~> work:
~>
~> -Sonnet 55-
~>
~> Not marble nor the gilded monuments
~> Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme,
~> But you shall shine more bright in these contents
~> Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.
~> When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
~> And broils root out the work of masonry,
~> Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn
~> The living record of your memory.
~> 'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity.
~> Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
~> Even in the eyes of all posterity
~> That wear this world out to the ending doom.
~> So, till the judgement that yourself arise,
~> You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.
~>
~>
The poem, but not the paper.
~> Mark Vinsel wrote:
~> >>If you think your work is only valid or valuable for three or
~> >>ten years, you need not make it last any longer.
~>
~> This is an interesting topic. I think of paintings as having "quality
~> of life," just like people, i.e., simple longevity doesn't necessarily
~> mean high quality of life experience.
~>
~> So, the works of someone like Franz Kline, for example, whose
~> paintings are now falling apart, have to be taken for what they are:
~> beautiful works that may not be here 500 years from now. (Kline
~> himself died fairly young! 1910-1962.)
~>
~> (On the other hand, as part of the "game of art," why not make
~> paintings as permanent as possible?)
Entirely valid proposition, except that I am convinced that the
art object and the physical object are not one and the same.
~>
~> William Blake's famous lines on time and space express the power
~> of immediacy:
~>
~> To see a world in a grain of sand
~> And a heaven in a wild flower,
~> Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
~> And eternity in an hour.
~>
~>
~> -Ross
-Bruce.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~