Fat on Thin - What id the modern equivalent
Mike Thompson
I use synthetics such as Oleopasto, Galkyd, Liquin...
can I use these in any order? Are any of these
fat or thin?
Andrew D
tm...@rcn.com (Mike Thompson) wrote:
>I don't use linseed oil very much.
>
>I use synthetics such as Oleopasto, Galkyd, Liquin...
>can I use these in any order? Are any of these
>fat or thin?
The terms are "fat" and "lean" and while that may seem like pedantics,
there is a significant difference and one which is often misunderstood by
peope who think it refers to the thickness of the paint film when it
actually refers to the relative proportion of oil to pigment.
I'll leave the discussion on alkyds for others.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mike Thompson
The conventional way to paint in oils is to start by
using turps only and then as more layers of paint are applied
one mixes in more oil.
Using synthetics, I like to first paint a thick impasto using
paint mixed with Oleopasto. I get a rough surface by using very
old stiff bristle brushes. When this is dry I brush on more paint
mixed with Galkyd. I enjoy the way the paint fills the crevices
in the rough surface of the impasto.
Is it safe to repeat this using more Oleopasto on top of
the Galkyd layer?
Mike
http://mikethompsonpaintings.com
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message news:<right-12080...@i172-041.nv.iinet.net.au>...
Dik F. Liu
>
>I don't use linseed oil very much.
>
>I use synthetics such as Oleopasto, Galkyd, Liquin...
>can I use these in any order? Are any of these
>fat or thin?
>
>Mike
These are all alkyd based medium. Galkyd dries more slowly than liquin. I am
not sure if the fat over lean rules stil apply in this age where many oil based
ingredients are saturated with alkyd resin.
Dik
Andrew D
(Mike Thompson) wrote:
>You are right Andy, I should have said "fat over lean".
>The conventional way to paint in oils is to start by
>using turps only and then as more layers of paint are applied
>one mixes in more oil.
There is a tendency to think of "fat over lean" as meaning "thick over
thin" but it isn't that simple.
It's my understanding that adding turps does not actually make the paint
*leaner* since after the turps evaporates, the ratio of oil-to-pigment is
still the same as before it was diluted. So, the paint film is definitely
thinner, but the actual amount of oil surrounding each particle of pigment
is the same as it would have been had no turps been used.
Adding turps to your paint is a bit like dissolving a sugar cube in a cup
of water - where the sugar represents pigment and the cup represents oil
(or fat). Even though you've dissolved the cube, you still have the same
amount of sugar in the same amount of cups. If you now heat this till all
the water's gone, you still end up with the same amount of sugar-per-cup
as you started with, though it won't be in a neat little cube any more.
Adding oil to your paint, is more like adding an extra cup to the above
experiment - the extra cup's still there when all the water's gone and the
one sugar cube is now distributed between two cups.
One of the main reasons turps is used in underlayers is because the paint
"dries" faster. This is a definite advantage when painting wet on wet
(alla prima) because the next layer can be added without too much risk of
disturbance. But fat over lean isn't much of an issue when painting wet on
wet since you essentially have only one paint layer and all the paint
"dries" together over time.
Fat over lean can become an issue if you add to the painting later on and
you would then need to be mindful of what mediums, if any, were used so
that the new paint can be fatter, not leaner.
I don't know enough about alkyds to comment on them.
Gudfer Yew
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>It's my understanding that adding turps does not actually make the paint
>*leaner* since after the turps evaporates, the ratio of oil-to-pigment is
>still the same as before it was diluted.
In this case, it's the "thinner" analogy that
comes into play. The addition of turps (or
mineral spirits, in my case) "thins" the paint.
That's why mineral spirits are often referred
to as "paint thinner." I would have to disagree
with a strict interpretation of "fat over lean"
meaning ONLY a reference to "oil to pigment ratio"
since "thinning" the paint means dispersing
the pigment "thinly" over the surface, as opposed
to applying it in "thick" impasto passages.
Of course, a true "lean" mix would be pigment
in thinner with no oil, but it's pretty obvious
that the pigment would fall right off the canvas
when the thinner evaporated if you tried that.
The admonition about not painting "lean over fat"
is more of a mechanical problem, as explained in
Mayer's "Artist Handbook." He uses the example of
painting with casein on a rubber inner tube. After
the paint dries, and you inflate the inner tube,
the paint will flake off. In the case of a flexible
layer of paint (fat) you have the same potential
when the inflexible (lean) layer fails to flex
as much as the underlying layer.
Gudfer Yew
>In this case, it's the "thinner" analogy that
>comes into play.
I don't think the lean/fat rule has much
application to painting today - UNLESS
you're painting traditionally with oil
paints, starting with a canvas prepared
with rabbit skin glue and white lead
priming. In that case it still applies.
Many, if not a majority of, artists today
use acrylic "gesso" for preparing canvas
for subsequent oil painting. If one were
to strictly adhere to the lean/fat rule,
then oil paint should never ever be applied
over the much more flexible acrylic. And
I can't imagine how many paintings have
been completed since acrylic "gesso" first
came on the market. It surely must be in
the millions by now.
Far more useful to today's artist is
learning about and understanding the various
combinations of mediums available, and
using them in a manner consistent with good
chemical/mechanical practices. Or at the
very least, learning from other artists
who have had good success with the various
combinations.
Andrew D
Yew) wrote:
>In article <3f3b...@news.zianet.com>, Gud...@dontemailme.com says...
>
>>In this case, it's the "thinner" analogy that
>>comes into play.
>
>I don't think the lean/fat rule has much
>application to painting today - UNLESS
>you're painting traditionally with oil
>paints, starting with a canvas prepared
>with rabbit skin glue and white lead
>priming. In that case it still applies.
>
>Many, if not a majority of, artists today
>use acrylic "gesso" for preparing canvas
>for subsequent oil painting. If one were
>to strictly adhere to the lean/fat rule,
>then oil paint should never ever be applied
>over the much more flexible acrylic.
Still a controversial topic for sure. But the "flexibility" of acrylic is
rather different to the ongoing "flexing" of oil paint. The oil continues
to expand and/or contract as it dries over the years - it "flexes" no
matter what substrate it's on. Dry acrylic only flexes with changes in
temperature or movement of the support (canvas).
>Far more useful to today's artist is
>learning about and understanding the various
>combinations of mediums available, and
>using them in a manner consistent with good
>chemical/mechanical practices. Or at the
>very least, learning from other artists
>who have had good success with the various
>combinations.
As with almost everything in art, it's a matter of personal assessment,
experience and desire. Ask lots of questions and filter the answers then
work to the best of your ability to achieve the outcome you're aiming for.
For some artists, this latter intent requires the abandonment of any
rules, regardless of what this means for the archivability of their work.
Rothko, Picasso and Pollock clearly didn't give a toss about the rules and
their paintings sell for millions, flaking or not. :)
Gudfer Yew
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Rothko, Picasso and Pollock clearly didn't give a toss about the rules and
>their paintings sell for millions, flaking or not. :)
Add the worst of all, Albert Pinkham Ryder to your
group. His and Rothko's paintings have suffered
horrible color shifts, virtually rendering many
of their paintings unrecognizable from the
originals and unreadable in many instances.
Ryder used a form of asphaltum to paint with,
as did other artists in days of yore. And
I suspect artists of yore were just as prone,
if not more so, to use fugitive materials as
artists of today. We probably don't know about
all the failed paintings because they failed
early on, and totally.