Oil over Acrylic
Marliyn
In regard to warning not to use oil over acrylic "gesso" and medium,
I found this quote from Maecklenburg and Tumosa of the Smithsonian
Institution's Conservation Analytical Laboratory:
"One of the traditional materials we would not recommend to artist
is RABBIT SKIN GLUE. Any of the refined hide glues that have
traditionally been used to seal the surface of canvas...will remain
responsive to environmental conditions. That means that the glue will
expand and contract with the relative humidity changes - so much
that it is likely to crack or cause fissures in the paint applied
over it. We found much more satisfactory results when surfaces were
prepared with acrylic gesso or medium."
This was in the Opus Newsletter, Vancouver, BC, Canada, March, 1997.
Also Daniel Smith Art Supplies recommends oil over acrylic and they
do a lot of research. I don't think they would recommend this method
and risk litigation from dissatisfied artists and their clients.
Marilyn
Stanley Beck
Marliyn wrote:
>
> In regard to warning not to use oil over acrylic "gesso" and medium,
>
> Marilyn
I believe that it is in reference to relativly thick layers of acrylic, due
to its coefficient of expansion, and its ability to adhere to the acrylic.
Oil would be more affected by the flexing of the canvas than by the
expansion/contraction of a thin layer of gesso.
I paint with oil over acrylic gesso, and have not had problems. I wouldn't
paint oil over acrylic paint, though (except maybe a thin, watery wash).
--
Stanley Beck
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
Info --> mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
Will Call
In article <331EEF...@islandnet.com>, anti...@islandnet.com says...
>Also Daniel Smith Art Supplies recommends oil over acrylic and they
>do a lot of research. I don't think they would recommend this method
>and risk litigation from dissatisfied artists and their clients.
This whole discussion borders on the ridiculous, IMHO. Acrylic
Gessos have been sold for use under oil and other mediums for
nearly 50 years now, and can you imagine the number of artists
who have used the easy-to-apply acrylic in preference to the traditional
glue sizing and gessos over that period of time? The argument
put forth by some of the touted art experts is more a question of how
acrylic will survive the test of time -- will paintings created using acrylic
last as long as those done with traditional materials or not? Unless you
consider your work to be of "masterpiece" quality, why worry about it?
W.C.
Marliyn
So sorry to border on the ridiculous. Aren't you testy.
I haven't painted my masterpiece yet.
Consider Julian Schnabel, who has to spend so much time running around
re-gluing his "masterpieces " for his clients.
Maybe what painters should aim for is to have their work outlast them
in an incomprehensible world, on the edge of the millenium,
rapidly hurtling toward an unknown future
and running out of resources.
R/L Davis
Marliyn wrote:
> In regard to warning not to use oil over acrylic "gesso" and medium,
> Institution's Conservation Analytical Laboratory:
>
> "One of the traditional materials we would not recommend to artist
> is RABBIT SKIN GLUE. Any of the refined hide glues that have
> traditionally been used to seal the surface of canvas...will remain
> responsive to environmental conditions. That means that the glue will
> expand and contract with the relative humidity changes - so much
> that it is likely to crack or cause fissures in the paint applied
> over it. We found much more satisfactory results when surfaces were
> prepared with acrylic gesso or medium."
>
> This was in the Opus Newsletter, Vancouver, BC, Canada, March, 1997.
>
> do a lot of research. I don't think they would recommend this method
> and risk litigation from dissatisfied artists and their clients.
Marilyn,
Interesting. I would like to see the entire writing in order to know in what
context this was said. Obviously it can't be taken completely seriously,
since rabbit skin glue has been used successfully for so many years.
Applied too heavily, rabbit skin glue can be dangerous to the structure of a
painting. It has to be applied to the canvas only as a size, and not as a
built up layer. And as an ingredient in traditional gesso (or as in my case,
gesso emulsion) it has long been used to great effect.
The problem with using acrylic "gesso" under oils is that there has not been
enough time since their introduction to properly be judged. The problem
that is foreseen is that the oils will eventually become much more brittle
than the acrylic and will begin to come away. Whether or not this will
happen or how long it might take remains the mystery. Those who suggest
that it is a sound practice do not yet have the proof of time that is needed
for such a statement.
There are many examples of techniques that were recommended in the past that
proved to be unsound, so the serious artists, the artist who is concerned
with the longevity of his/her work, must decide whether or not it is a risk
worth taking.
Richard
Will Call
In article <331F59...@islandnet.com>, anti...@islandnet.com says...
>Consider Julian Schnabel, who has to spend so much time running around
>re-gluing his "masterpieces " for his clients.
Julian Schnabel's works have NOTHING whatever to do with
using oil paints over acrylics. They have everything to do
with gluing heavy pieces of crockery to flimsy canvas and
wondering why the pieces fall off. W.C.
Will Call
In article <5fpfo6$7...@news.istar.ca>, dav...@tallships.istar.ca says...
>There are many examples of techniques that were recommended in the past that
>proved to be unsound
This is true of just about every facet of life. But when you have an
explicit understanding of chemistry, physics, and other engineering
principals and apply that understanding to building something -- be
it a bridge, a skyscraper, or a painting, you trust to the knowledge
that sound engineering principals soundly applied will produce a
sound product / result. That is the case with using the modern
equivalent of gesso instead of the old and traditional. Wonder where
we would be if we still built everything as they did when they
built the pyramids? Oh yes, we could be assured that what we
built would last as long -- but to what purpose? Even the
pyramids have deteriorated substantially so that what we see
today is not what the pyramid builders saw when they were
completed. W.C.
R/L Davis
Will Call wrote:
>
> In article <5fpfo6$7...@news.istar.ca>, dav...@tallships.istar.ca says...
>
> >There are many examples of techniques that were recommended in the
>
> This is true of just about every facet of life. But when you have an
> explicit understanding of chemistry, physics, and other engineering
> principals and apply that understanding to building something -- be
> it a bridge, a skyscraper, or a painting, you trust to the knowledge
> that sound engineering principals soundly applied will produce a
> sound product / result. That is the case with using the modern
> equivalent of gesso instead of the old and traditional. Wonder where
> we would be if we still built everything as they did when they
> built the pyramids? Oh yes, we could be assured that what we
> built would last as long -- but to what purpose? Even the
> pyramids have deteriorated substantially so that what we see
> today is not what the pyramid builders saw when they were
> completed. W.C.
Will,
Acrylic "gesso" was originally developed as a primer for acrylic paint, NOT
oils. Way back in the beginning, I was there, I remember, artists immediately
started using it for priming canvas for oil painting, it was just so damn
simple, and no one wanted to mess about with hide glue anyway; hot plates,
double boilers and all that stuff. I would even dare to say that the
manufacturers said that it was NOT meant as a primer for oils,
but my memory is not quite that good. So, since artists were using the
stuff as a primer for oils anyway, the manufacturers, seeing a good thing,
started saying that it was good for that too. (And yes, it's still the same
stuff.)
As I said in my previous post, I believe that the verdict is still out.
Everything I have read on the subject is inconclusive. Some are
now starting to say it may be O.K., but even those know that the time that
has passed so far is not sufficient since oil paintings continue to "dry" and
become brittle for hundreds of years. We simply don't know for sure.
I do admire your faith in the capitalist system and the principals of the
marketplace, but I remain sceptical. Do you always have such faith that
industry has your best interest at heart?
And are you comparing the well preserved paintings of Raphael or VerMeer
or Rembrandt to what's left of the pyramids?
Richard
Will Call
In article <5fqrpf$2...@news.istar.ca>, dav...@tallships.istar.ca says...
>And are you comparing the well preserved paintings of Raphael or VerMeer
>or Rembrandt to what's left of the pyramids?
You evidently missed part of what I was saying. If I were the equal
of any of those artists, I would be using the very finest, most
expensive, most difficult-to-use materials and methods that I
could come up with -- to say nothing of time-tested. But 99.999
percent of artists working today will NEVER approach "old master"
status. In fact, much of the art being produced today will hopefully
have a short life and disappear sooner rather than later.
You used the words "well preserved" which leads me
to ask you how many of the old works do you think never made
it into the 20th century because they weren't preserved -- didn't have
the loving care of an expert conservator? If you look at most old
oil paintings you will find that virtually all are a network of fine
cracks and MANY have been retouched over and over again by
conservators because the paint has flaked away from the substrate.
I've yet to see a single case of cracking in my
paintings which for the past 30 years (my first painting effort
was ca. 1967) have been painted with oils
over acrylic gesso -- I have NEVER used the olde tyme materials.
And that applies to those I have rolled for storage as well as to
those that are stretched and framed. Admittedly, I do not use
heavy impasto passages in my paintings. W. C.
R/L Davis
Will Call wrote:
> You evidently missed part of what I was saying. If I were the equal
> of any of those artists, I would be using the very finest, most
> expensive, most difficult-to-use materials and methods that I
> could come up with -- to say nothing of time-tested. But 99.999
> percent of artists working today will NEVER approach "old master"
> status. In fact, much of the art being produced today will hopefully
> have a short life and disappear sooner rather than later.
Well, it sounds as though we made a very different judgement about Marilyn
(who asked the original question) and her work. I assumed that, since she
was asking, she must have a concern about the longevity of her work, and I
saw nothing in her post that led me immediately to believe she is a "Sunday
painter" or dilettante. If you, on the other hand, are suggesting that "Sunday
painters" and dilettantes need not concern themselves with the longevity of
their work, I would probably agree.
> You used the words "well preserved" which leads me
> to ask you how many of the old works do you think never made
> it into the 20th century because they weren't preserved -- didn't have
> the loving care of an expert conservator? If you look at most old
> oil paintings you will find that virtually all are a network of fine
> cracks and MANY have been retouched over and over again by
> conservators because the paint has flaked away from the substrate.
This surely makes the case for my argument not yours. If those who knew
what they were doing were able to make paintings that have lasted in near
pristine condition for hundreds of years, the cracked and chipped paintings
of others shows the perils of poor craft.
> I've yet to see a single case of cracking in my
> paintings which for the past 30 years (my first painting effort
> was ca. 1967) have been painted with oils
> over acrylic gesso -- I have NEVER used the olde tyme materials.
> And that applies to those I have rolled for storage as well as to
> those that are stretched and framed. Admittedly, I do not use
> heavy impasto passages in my paintings.
I have addressed this several times. 30 or even 50 years is not enough
time to say for sure that the technique is sound.. The verdict is still out.
Richard
Craig Luce
snippo
> If those who knew
> what they were doing were able to make paintings that have lasted in near
> pristine condition for hundreds of years, the cracked and chipped paintings
> of others shows the perils of poor craft.
>
> > I've yet to see a single case of cracking in my
> > paintings which for the past 30 years (my first painting effort
> > was ca. 1967) have been painted with oils
> > over acrylic gesso -- I have NEVER used the olde tyme materials.
> > And that applies to those I have rolled for storage as well as to
> > those that are stretched and framed. Admittedly, I do not use
> > heavy impasto passages in my paintings.
>
> I have addressed this several times. 30 or even 50 years is not enough
> time to say for sure that the technique is sound.. The verdict is still out.
Painters:
I think you'd find that conservators are able to do AMAZING things----
IF the work is deemed worthy, the $$ will be there--- so why not just
concentrate on the images? (Recall that many of the seminal works of
the 19th cent are done on chipboard and cardboard? Just think of the
work involved in doing a relining!)
Sure, use GOOD materials (archival quality is not the sole reason to use
'olde tyme' materials), cause for the best reasons are their innate
qualities. For examples: linen restretches well, glue sizing is a
wonderful surface on which to paint, Old Holland paints' tint-strength
is unbelievable and therefore a bargain, etc., etc.
--
Craig A. Luce, MS, CMI, <Crai...@Virginia.edu>
Medical Illustration and Animation since '77
UVa. Sch. of Med, ITC-Academic Computing Health Sciences
Luce Studios, Inc., Charlottesville 804.823.2745
Marliyn
Thank you gentlemen for the tip about Old Holland Paints.
Have you tried Schmincke Oil Paints? if so what do you think?
I think I will risk oil over acrylic, because my intention is
to have my work outlast me, that's all. I try to avoid using animal
products where possible, this is a personal choice.
Perhaps you can discuss the problem of keeping pastels on their ground
sometime.
au revoir
Marilyn
R/L Davis
Craig Luce wrote:
>
> snippo
> Painters:
> I think you'd find that conservators are able to do AMAZING things----
> IF the work is deemed worthy, the $$ will be there--- so why not just
> concentrate on the images? (Recall that many of the seminal works of
> the 19th cent are done on chipboard and cardboard? Just think of the
> work involved in doing a relining!)
Craig,
The money may be there or it may not. Suppose there is a public
backlash because of the cost of constantly fixing poorly constructed
paintings. I think that this is a very real possibility. Technique often
suffered as the push of "modern" painting led artists to greater and greater
artistic expression . (Pollock's use of common house paint, directly
applied
to the canvas, jumps immediately to mind, and there are countless other
examples.) It has happened in the past the "great" paintings of the time
went out of favour and were suddenly and unceremoniously shuffled off to
the storage rooms, and paintings that do not fall into the current canon of
"great" will be left to deteriorate.
> Sure, use GOOD materials (archival quality is not the sole reason to use
> 'olde tyme' materials), cause for the best reasons are their innate
> qualities. For examples: linen restretches well, glue sizing is a
> wonderful surface on which to paint, Old Holland paints' tint-strength
> is unbelievable and therefore a bargain, etc., etc.
Yes, I agree completely. I've steered away from that point in order to keep
my arguments going in a vaguely straight line, but I use a traditional
technique more for the joy of the handling of these materials, especially
compared to the "plastic" quality of acrylics, than for any other reason.
(And Old Holland paint not only has great tinting strength but it also
DOESN'T have the large amount of extra oil, suspended in inert filler, that
ALL cheaper brands have.)
Richard
Judy867
With oil over acrylic, I have heard that there may be a problem with
acrylic gesso in its inability to expand and contract. Cotton/ linen
canvas with rabbit skin glue below, and linseed oil, turp, paint above
react similarly to environmental changes, giving one way or the other in
the same manner. Is there a problem with inserting this unmoving acrylic
layer? This is just a theory I read--don't think its been proven. Seems
to support using like with like. -Judy
Stanley Beck
I agree with the concern for permanence, but I think that many artists are
getting too preoccupied with this issue of acrylic gesso. If it is applied
in thin, diluted layers, I believe it would have less effect on the
painting than the flexing of the canvas.
If one would rather use the rabbit skin glue with oil gesso, this is a time
tested ground.
Regards,
mmw
Sorry, I thought that acylic "gesso" was only applied to a rigid surface.
Most canvas prepared for acrylic painting are just coated acrylic medium
and with white acrylic paint. I have even read warnings against applying
acrylic "gesso" to canvas.
Hill
In article <332AFC...@islandnet.com>, mmw <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> Stanley Beck wrote:
> >
> > > With oil over acrylic, I have heard that there may be a problem with
> > > acrylic gesso in its inability to expand and contract.
> > I agree with the concern for permanence, but I think that many artists are
> > getting too preoccupied with this issue of acrylic gesso.
> Sorry, I thought that acylic "gesso" was only applied to a rigid surface.
Ithought the problem was that:
1. The oil paint can't grab the surface of the gesso. I've seen very clean,
unstained white gesso underneath chipped off oil paint on old paintings I
have rolled up.
2. The acrylic gesso remains flexible while the oil paint becomes brittle
as it
dries. It's like dried plaster on a plastic garbage bag, to exaggerate the
relation. The layer of paint can't flex with the acrylic gesso, and it
cracks.
My sources are Ralph Mayer and Mark Gottsegen's "The Painter's Handbook",
which is a great book.
I use Windsor and Newton Alkyd gesso. This stuff works great. It levels,
and dries quickly with a nice surface. I think it's superior to Daniel
Smith's Alkyd gesso. I paint on wood panels, so I don't use rabbit skin
glue. You might have to with canvas.
Stanley Beck
Hill wrote:
> ...
> Ithought the problem was that:
>
> 1. The oil paint can't grab the surface of the gesso. I've seen very
> clean, unstained white gesso underneath chipped off oil paint on old
> paintings I have rolled up.
>
> 2. The acrylic gesso remains flexible while the oil paint becomes brittle
> as it dries. It's like dried plaster on a plastic garbage bag, to
> exaggerate the relation. The layer of paint can't flex with the acrylic
> gesso, and it cracks.
> Are you sure that it is because of the gesso, or because of the fact that it
was rolled, and how it was rolled and stored? Flaking of oil paint existed
long before acrylic anything.
Hill
In article <3332AE...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
<sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Are you sure that it is because of the gesso, or because of the fact
that it
> was rolled, and how it was rolled and stored? Flaking of oil paint existed
> long before acrylic anything.
Coud be, I don't roll them anymore. Those paintings had more problems than
just acrylic gesso, like lots of turpentine. The paint didn't just flake,
it came off in potato chip sized chips, right down to the canvas. The bad
thing is I was following the teacher's directions for handling the
materials and finished paintings. It's distressing to have to sweep up
your bachelor's degree so no little kids will eat it.
BUt that's nothing. I know a guy who claims to keep his unstretched
finished paintings under the rug in his studio. I mean he walks on them
all the time. Maybe he was kidding, maybe not.
Stanley Beck
Hill wrote:
>
>
> Coud be, I don't roll them anymore. Those paintings had more problems than
> just acrylic gesso, like lots of turpentine. The paint didn't just flake,
> it came off in potato chip sized chips, right down to the canvas. The bad
> thing is I was following the teacher's directions for handling the
> materials and finished paintings. It's distressing to have to sweep up
> your bachelor's degree so no little kids will eat it.
> BUt that's nothing. I know a guy who claims to keep his unstretched
> finished paintings under the rug in his studio. I mean he walks on them
> all the time. Maybe he was kidding, maybe not.
I know what you are saying. Regarding rolled paintings, I was taught that
if you had to, to roll them loosly, with the painting on the outside. I
never liked the idea at all, much less for an extended time.
I've had a couple of paintings crack, but it was because of very thick
impasto underpainting, using an underpainting white that was too short and
lean.
A saying that I heard years ago, goes something like this:
Good judgement comes from experience;
Experience comes from bad judgement.
I think we can all relate to that.
Regards,