Painting without medium
Charles Eicher
<E7F454C981383D68.8D304A10...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
tja...@airmail.net says...
>
>Seems like I've heard of several well-known painters who did not use
>any medium when they painted.
It just isn't possible. All premanufactured paints contain medium, mixed right
in with the pigment in the tube. If you make your own paint, you start with a
pile of dry pigment. Add water and gum arabic, its watercolor. Add a medium, its
paint. Add nothing, and it won't stick to a surface, it will just rub off and
blow away.
>One impressionist or early post-impressionist was supposed to have set
>his paint out in newspapers to get rid of oil in the paint, and then
>using the resulting thickened paint. Who was it?
That's ridiculous. In the impressionist era, artists were just starting to use
premanufactured paints, rather than grinding their own pigments and adding them
to a medium. Those premanufactured paints weren't cheap. Why would someone buy
these new and expensive paints, and then suck the oil out of them, when he could
just use the conventional materials that were readily available?
>I think I read somewhere that Sargent used paint straight out of the
>tube. Is that true?
I think I read somewhere that Sargent used so much medium and solvent that the
paint would run right off his pallette. I'm not kidding.
>Does anyone out there know of well-known "traditional" painters (using
>artist's brushes and regular oil paint straight out of the tube) who
>did not use medium.
Yep, there are plenty of artists who use pigments with no medium. Except that
they call it "drawing" and not "painting."
Tom Jacob
any medium when they painted.
One impressionist or early post-impressionist was supposed to have set
his paint out in newspapers to get rid of oil in the paint, and then
using the resulting thickened paint. Who was it?
I think I read somewhere that Sargent used paint straight out of the
tube. Is that true?
Does anyone out there know of well-known "traditional" painters (using
artist's brushes and regular oil paint straight out of the tube) who
did not use medium.
Thanks,
Tom Jacob
Degas5
>Seems like I've heard of several well-known painters who did not use
>any medium when they painted.
>
When I paint with very creamy, buttery paints like Blockx or Sennelier, very
often I use them right out of the tube. Then again, when painting with Winsor
Newton or Pretested or other stiff paints always use mediums.
Bonnie
Blue Moon
>Does anyone out there know of well-known "traditional" painters (using
>artist's brushes and regular oil paint straight out of the tube) who
>did not use medium.
I can't speak for 'well-known' artists but all artists at one
time or another, when using oil paints, run into a tube that
has too much oil. The oil tends to separate and the pigments
tend to consolidate if you don't use a tube for a long time.
I've seen it happen with various manufacturers. And yes, I
know of artists who, for their purposes, feel ALL oil paints
are too oily and will put them on a paper towel first to soak
out the excess oil before applying to the work with either a
brush or a knife. These are times when they want a heavy
impasto passage.
Oil paint does NOT have a 'medium' built into it. Most
manufacturers use linseed oil, poppyseed oil, etc as the
vehicle without any additions other than the pigments or dyes.
You won't find damar, for example, in tube paints. But when used in
paints, the liquid is referred to as a 'VEHICLE' and not
a medium. MEDIUM usually speaks of the liquid the artist
formulates to mix with tube paints on the palette.
For impasto applications, oil paints are OFTEN used as they
come from the tube. And for knife painting too.
Charles Eicher
>Oil paint does NOT have a 'medium' built into it. Most
>manufacturers use linseed oil, poppyseed oil, etc as the
>vehicle without any additions other than the pigments or dyes.
>You won't find damar, for example, in tube paints.
That is not strictly true. I know plenty of painters who use only oils in the
medium they mix with tube paints. It is not necessarily a defining quality of a
medium that it contains damar or any other varnish. The stuff in the tubes does
contain medium.
> ..But when used in
>paints, the liquid is referred to as a 'VEHICLE' and not
>a medium. MEDIUM usually speaks of the liquid the artist
>formulates to mix with tube paints on the palette.
Again, not strictly true. Technically, these are "binders" not "vehicles" but
are most often referred to as "medium." Technically, there is no difference
between:
1. Oil paint right out of the tube, containing linseed oil & other "binders"
(medium).
2. Handmade oil paint, using ground pigments and mixed with linseed oil.
3. An artist using either of these two methods, and adding additional linseed
oil at the pallette..
>For impasto applications, oil paints are OFTEN used as they
>come from the tube. And for knife painting too.
And they're full of medium, in their raw state, right out of the tube. If they
didn't contain medium, they'd be cakes of hardened pigment.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
But it seems to me that the original poster wasn't asking for such technical
distinctions -- at least I understood the question to be simply using the
paint from the tube, regardless of the chemistry. I'm remembering that Van
Gogh did this -- am I incorrect? I've also heard that VG's paintings are a
conservator's nightmare -- probably because he didn't pay too much attention
to 'the rules of permanent painting.'
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Degas5
>That is not strictly true. I know plenty of painters who use only oils in the
>medium they mix with tube paints
I may be wrong, but I always thought that a medium was anything that you add to
your paint, be it pure pigment or tube color that changes it in some way.
Mussini's oils are resin based. Some people add resin to their tube paint and
that would be a medium, but the resin in Mussini's paint would not be called
medium but the carrier of the pigment .
Bonnie
Dik F Liu
paint straight from the tube dries at different rate. The advantage of an added
medium is that it even out the drying rate of the various pigment. Without
medium, some colors such as orche will dry faster, whereas other color such as
ivory black will dry much slower. This is a recipe for disaster.
>One impressionist or early post-impressionist was supposed to have set
>his paint out in newspapers to get rid of oil in the paint, and then
>using the resulting thickened paint. Who was it?<
Some of the Impressionist, including Monet, did this. That was during the
infancy of tubed paint - not longer after the invention of the collaspable tube
which was in 1839.
>Seems like I've heard of several well-known painters who did not use
>any medium when they painted.
>
>One impressionist or early post-impressionist was supposed to have set
>his paint out in newspapers to get rid of oil in the paint, and then
>using the resulting thickened paint. Who was it?
>
>I think I read somewhere that Sargent used paint straight out of the
>tube. Is that true?
>
>Does anyone out there know of well-known "traditional" painters (using
>artist's brushes and regular oil paint straight out of the tube) who
>did not use medium.
>
>Thanks,
>
Dik F Liu
(Degas5) writes:
>I may be wrong, but I always thought that a medium was anything that you add
>to
>your paint, be it pure pigment or tube color that changes it in some way.
The oil that paint is grind with - not mixed - is called the binder. The medium
is what you mix with the oil paint.
Dik
Degas5
>medium
>is what you mix with the oil paint.
>
>Dik
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, I understand and that is what I said, call it "binder", "carrier",
"vehicle" or whatever. I wouldn't find it surprising if many old masters used
nothing but the paint and the vehicle it was ground in. If the artist paints
for dark to light and adds white to succeeding layers, the painting should dry
without cracking, but one would have to know the drying rate of the pigments he
is using. Also, when painting in one sitting or a la prima , as many
impressionists and perhaps barbizon painters, it is not necessary to use
medium. I've read more than once that the less medium you add to your paint,
the more stable the surface is, providing of course you are mindful of the
drying rates of pigments.
Bonnie
Degas5
>But it seems to me that the original poster wasn't asking for such technical
>distinctions -- at least I understood the question to be simply using the
>paint from the tube, regardless of the chemistry. I'm remembering that Van
>Gogh did this -- am I incorrect? I've also heard that VG's paintings are a
>conservator's nightmare -- probably because he didn't pay too much attention
>to 'the rules of permanent painting.'
>
>Erik Mattila
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am in full agreement with your remarks and I'm sure many others just squeezed
out their paints and went right to it.
Bonnie
Dik F Liu
(Degas5) writes:
>I wouldn't find it surprising if many old masters used nothing but the paint
and the vehicle it was ground in.<
Many did. We needn't guess. Dossiers of conservation projects are readily
available and often published. Analysis of Titian's painting shows that after
his early years, he mixed his paint only with oils - first with walnut oil
and then with linseed oil. But then, Titian didn't have to deal with today's
slow drying paint such as Alizarin Crimson (invented in 1868, I think). He also
painted in thin layers and in an absorbent ground, as was the mores of the day.
Later, in the Baroque period, artists began mixing their paint with different
medium. Rembrandt was known to use ground glass in his paint as a dryer. This
is not a sound method but since his paintings are still around it couldn't have
been that bad. Reynolds used a soft resin - possibly mastic - and his paintings
are a conservators' nightmare. Turner used meglip and painted thickly and his
paintings often cracked. Dufy used meglip and painted thinly and his paintings
are in great shape - not that they artistically deserved to be.
The key isn't whether if you should use medium. The key is knowing what medium
to use in what techniques. You need to know your craft as well as your art.
There is no easy answer and no easy way out.
>I've read more than once that the less medium you add to your paint, the more
stable the surface is, providing of course you are mindful of the drying rates
of pigments.<
This sounds like Star Trek science. It also makes little sense. No painter
worth his salt will use the wrong color just because when used straight from
the tube that wrong color is more archival. Think about it: why would anyone do
that when if he uses a good medium he can basically use any color he wants?
And who in their right mind will make a painting with all the wrong color
decisions just so that painting could last a thousand years? Of course you
should know the drying rates of the different pigments. You should know your
craft, which includes knowing the different mediums. Mixed your paint with a
permanent medium, and you can use the right color everytime providing that you
know what that right color is.
Dik
Dik F Liu
writes:
>It just isn't possible. All premanufactured paints contain medium, mixed right
in with the pigment in the tube. If you make your own paint, you start with a
pile of dry pigment. Add water and gum arabic, its watercolor. Add a medium,
its paint. Add nothing, and it won't stick to a surface, it will just rub off
and blow away.<
That is simply not true. Some paints, such as oil paint, require that you grind
the pigment with the binder. If you are to store the oil paint in the tube you
will also need a stabilizer. Otherwise the oil will separate from the pigment
inside the tube. The stabilizer of yore was wax paste. You don't just mix oil
and pigment together to make oil paint. This is pure fantasy.
>Why would someone buy these new and expensive paints, and then suck the oil
out of them, when he could just use the conventional materials that were
readily available?<
You don't know much about paint, do you? Some of the newer paints were not
readily available. Pigments such as artificial ultramarine require many hours
of grinding and were best machine grind in large quantity, rather than grind by
artist individually.
Dik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
dik...@aol.com (Dik F Liu) wrote:
> Many did. We needn't guess. Dossiers of conservation projects are readily
> available and often published. Analysis of Titian's painting shows that after
> his early years, he mixed his paint only with oils - first with walnut oil
> and then with linseed oil. But then, Titian didn't have to deal with today's
> slow drying paint such as Alizarin Crimson (invented in 1868, I think). He also
> painted in thin layers and in an absorbent ground, as was the mores of the day.
> Later, in the Baroque period, artists began mixing their paint with different
> medium. Rembrandt was known to use ground glass in his paint as a dryer. This
> is not a sound method but since his paintings are still around it couldn't have
> been that bad. Reynolds used a soft resin - possibly mastic - and his paintings
> are a conservators' nightmare. Turner used meglip and painted thickly and his
> paintings often cracked. Dufy used meglip and painted thinly and his paintings
> are in great shape - not that they artistically deserved to be.
(clip)
> Dik
>
Dik, now you've have me very curious. What is meglip? (If you don't tell me
I'll retaliate by defending Dufy (I joke)).
Dik F Liu
>Dik, now you've have me very curious. What is meglip? (If you don't tell me
I'll retaliate by defending Dufy (I joke)).<
Sorry, that was Megilp. It is generally made by cooking walnut oil with
litharge. This makes something called black oil. Black oil is then saturated
with mastic tears to make megilp. There are various recipes for megilp and for
black oil. And they are the bases for the Maroger formulas. Billy Turner used
megilp in his early years. But then he saw the error of his ways and changed to
wax based medium - possibly just a wax paste. This led to other problems but
that's another stupid story.
Dik
Tom Hart
dik...@aol.com writes:
[in regard to using paint straight from the tube]
>I have heard several painters advocating this practice. It is sheer
lunacy. Oil
>paint straight from the tube dries at different rate. The advantage of
an added
>medium is that it even out the drying rate of the various pigment.
Without
>medium, some colors such as orche will dry faster, whereas other color
such as
>ivory black will dry much slower. This is a recipe for disaster.
Dick-
Are you suggesting that using added medium eliminates the different
drying times of various colors? That doesn't seem likely to me, because I
cannot believe that painters -- either by accident or design -- add just
enough medium to each color to compensate for the variation in drying
properties. I really believe you overstate any problems inherent in the
practice of using little or no added medium. "Sheer lunacy" is really a
tad strong, in my humble opinion.
Tom
Dik F Liu
>Dick-Are you suggesting that using added medium eliminates the different
drying times of various colors? That doesn't seem likely to me, because I
cannot believe that painters -- either by accident or design -- add just enough
medium to each color to compensate for the variation in drying properties.<
The name is Dik, not Dick. No, I did not suggest that adding medium could
eliminates the different drying rate. As any practicing oil painter knows,
mediums affect the drying rate of the paint. Fast drying mediums speed the
drying while slow drying mediums retard it. That is, the various drying rates
of paints begin catering to the drying rate of the medium. That's why we use
liquin to speed the drying; clove and poppy oil to retard it. Use a moderate
drying medium - say one that in a thin layer dries in four, five days - and it
will retard colors like umber while speed the drying of colors like Ivory
Black. With some techniques the medium also improves the viscosity of the
paint, rendering it easier with which to work. I don't know of any medium that
could eliminate the drying rate altogether, considering the erratic and justly
intuitive working habits of many artists. Some painters begin by mixing a
little medium to their white - not a bad idea considering many color mixtures
contain some white. In the haste of the painting battle we don't always reach
for the medium, so as long as there is white in the mixture there will be some
medium.
>"Sheer lunacy" is really a tad strong, in my humble opinion.<
I don't mince words. I can't, really. It's one of my shortcomings.
Dik
Tom Hart
dik...@aol.com writes:
Dik -
My sincere apologies for getting your name wrong in my first reply to
your post.
While I still maintain that you overstate the "lunacy" of using oil paint
from the tube without added medium, I'm not disagreeing with you as much
as I am trying to understand your position. Do you mean that an added
medium tends to minimize the difference in drying times between colors
just by virtue of its presence? If I read you correctly, you are saying
that an artist does not necessarily need to add less medium to a
fast-drying paint and more to a slow-drying paint (for example); the
drying times of the paints will all approach the drying time of the
medium -- although they probably won't become equal.
Is that close to what you mean?
Regards,
Tom
Dik F Liu
>My sincere apologies for getting your name wrong in my first reply to your
post. <
No apology needed, Tom.
> If I read you correctly, you are saying that an artist does not necessarily
need to add less medium to a fast-drying paint and more to a slow-drying paint
(for example); the drying times of the paints will all approach the drying time
of the medium -- although they probably won't become equal. <
Yes. Few painters will remember which paint needs more medium and which need
less. He doesn't need to. We are painters, not tech geeks. The idea is to know
the craft so that it doesn't get in the way. Each paint when mixed with a
moderate drying medium with sway to the drying rate of the paint to that of the
medium. This is why he shouldn't use extremely slow or fast drying medium.
Imaging if a painter mixes pure zinc white with pure clove oil in the
underpainting, and then lay say Raw Umber on top. He'd will just have a big
mess - a very aromatic mess, however <g>
The idea of applying paint according to their drying rate and therefore not
needing a medium is, well, if not lunacy, then at least wayward. The priority
is wrong. Art is not served if Umber is needed, but Ivory Black used instead.
To heed the word of Thoreau: the cart before the horse is neither useful nor
beautiful.
Dik
Degas5
>This sounds like Star Trek science. It also makes little sense. No painter
>worth his salt will use the wrong color just because when used straight from
>the tube that wrong color is more archival. Think about it: why would anyone
>do
>that when if he uses a good medium he can basically use any color he wants?
>And who in their right mind will make a painting with all the wrong color
>decisions just so that painting could last a thousand years? Of course you
>should know the drying rates of the different pigments. You should know your
>craft, which includes knowing the different mediums. Mixed your paint with a
>permanent medium, and you can use the right color everytime providing that
>you
>know what that right color is.
>
>Dik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You're right Dik, it doesn't make any sense the way I worded my reply. What I
meant to say was that if you wish to paint with simply paint, no mediums added,
you should be mindful of the different drying rates and therefore avoid
applying faster drying colors over slow drying colors, like cadmiums or whites.
That makes sense, doesn't it? I'm not promoting a method of painting, only
saying that if you were in a bind and had no medium or chose to use no medium,
you could do it without any problems down the road. Believe me, I'm no Trekkie
, just a simple painter observing simple principles. No big deal:) After
reading all these posts on this subject, I think the subj. is getting worn out.
Ralph Mayer said it all. He is my mentor when it comes to technique.
Bonnie
Blue Moon
>The key isn't whether if you should use medium. The key is knowing what medium
>to use in what techniques. You need to know your craft as well as your art.
>There is no easy answer and no easy way out.
That's it in a nutshell!!! Nothing more need be said. And the
only way you're going to KNOW is to do the research using
the published knowledge of all who have gone before. As
you say, "there is no easy way out" and it's too bad that
so many who aspire to be "great" arists think that there is.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Thanks, very informative -- elicits a lot of other questions. But I have a
book in storage called 'formulas for painters' and I'll look it up someday.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I was actually looking for the citation of a book I checked out of a library
several years ago, which I remember as "The Rules of Permanent Painting"
published by the British Royal Academy of Arts. (it wasn't that old, as the
announced 'newly created products for superior carriers -- i.e. plywood and
masonite -- probably around 1915). But I couldn't fine it in the UC system,
but here's a couple of others. (The second I include because of its title).
>
> Toch, Maximilian, 1864-. Materials for permanent painting; a manual for manufacturers, art dealers, artists and collectors. New York, D. Van Nostrand Co. 1911 208p. col. front., plates.
Smith, John, b. 1648?. The art of painting wherein is included the whole art
of vulgar painting, according to the best and most approved rules for
preparing an [sic] laying on of oyl colours : the whole treatise being so
full, compleat, and so exactly fitted to the meanest capacity, that all
persons whatsoever may by the directions contained therein be sufficiently
able to paint in oyl colours, not only sun-dials, but also all manner of
timber work ... /, composed by John Smith, philomath. London : Printed for
Samuel Crouch ..., 1676. [15], 82, [2] p. Series title: Early English books,
1641-1700 ; 1159:17. 4004766434
sim...@my-dejanews.com
deg...@aol.com (Degas5) wrote:
> >The oil that paint is grind with - not mixed - is called the binder. The
> >medium
> >is what you mix with the oil paint.
> >
> >Dik
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I understand and that is what I said, call it "binder", "carrier",
> "vehicle" or whatever. I wouldn't find it surprising if many old masters used
> nothing but the paint and the vehicle it was ground in. If the artist paints
> for dark to light and adds white to succeeding layers, the painting should dry
> without cracking, but one would have to know the drying rate of the pigments
he
> is using. Also, when painting in one sitting or a la prima , as many
> impressionists and perhaps barbizon painters, it is not necessary to use
> the more stable the surface is, providing of course you are mindful of the
> drying rates of pigments.
>
O.K. Can we agree that linseed oil and poppyseed oil are either binders or
vehicles; white spirit and sansodor are thinners; liquin is a medium. I also
use liquin as a protective varnish even though it is technically a glaze. I
also use oil alkyds straight out of the tube - it gives a thicker, more
opaque result. It is not easy though - you have to practise.
Simon
www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk
Leshiye
>One impressionist or early post-impressionist was supposed to have set
>his paint out in newspapers to get rid of oil in the paint, and then
>using the resulting thickened paint. Who was it?
Was this Degas? I think it was but not positive.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
sim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> O.K. Can we agree that linseed oil and poppyseed oil are either binders or
> vehicles; white spirit and sansodor are thinners; liquin is a medium. I also
> use liquin as a protective varnish even though it is technically a glaze. I
> also use oil alkyds straight out of the tube - it gives a thicker, more
> opaque result. It is not easy though - you have to practise.
A medium, traditionally, is anything you add to the paint to "thin" it down.
If you add linseed oil to your paint, then that's your "medium". I agree that
the paint that comes in the tubes is pigment mixed with vegetable oil, usually
linseed, safflower, or poppyseed.
They who know such things say you aren't supposed to use liquin over oils
because the liquin dries faster, and that could cause the paint below it to
crack. It's okay to paint oils over alkyds, but not okay to paint alkyds over
oils.
Regarding alkyds straight out of the tubes--I presume you mean the Winsor &
Newton alkyd paints--they come out of the tube really stiff and dry. Don't
you find it hard to cover large areas of canvas without diluting them with
Liquin and mineral spirits? Whenever I don't add a goodly amount of Liquin
and mineral spirits before painting, I usually regret it.
Dik F Liu
Dik F Liu
Dik F Liu
Degas5
> medium, traditionally, is anything you add to the paint to "thin" it down.
A medium is anything you "add" to the paint. It's something that "changes" the
paint in some way, not necessarily thinning. You can add a gel medium, such as
Zec or or resin based gels, that do not thin but extend the paint and changing
it by making it more transparent and faster drying and perhaps glossier.
Bonnie
mike...@my-dejanews.com
deg...@aol.com (Degas5) wrote:
> A medium is anything you "add" to the paint. It's something that "changes"
the
> paint in some way, not necessarily thinning. You can add a gel medium, such
as
Right, that's what I meant