Acrylic Mediums
King Rundzap
to Use Acrylic Mediums and Gels", but I thought the generic title
might be better.
Here's my unusual tip to start this thread:
If you use Liquitex Black Lava Texture Gel very thinly, it's an easy,
effective way to create masses of distant ants or other insects. It
wouldn't work on something scaled big, as the black specs are pretty
small, but for anything with smaller-scaled figures (or landscapes,
etc.) it works. It also works much better, of course, if you use it
with a lighter hue, as they are black specs.
I just know you were all looking for good way of putting hundreds of
bugs in your paintings!
Anyone else excited by there being so many kinds of gels for acrylics?
Plus all of those cool iridescent, interference and fluorescent
colors! I wish there were more analogous materials available for
oils. That's a good launching pad for someone like Paul, who is very
into materials--why isn't it possible yet to make things like
interference oil paints? Is it something unusual about the acrylic
suspension medium? Or is the "interference" property in the pigment
itself, and just no one has bothered to use oil, or an oil-compatible
suspension medium for the pigments yet? (I suppose at least one other
possibility is the the interference property is in the pigment but
that oil or oil-compatible suspension mediums cancel it out in some
way . . . I don't know, obviously).
--King Rundzap
Cal Dia
kingr...@hotmail.com says...
>
>This might be fun too.
I'd suggest you take this to the web sites that are
specifically addressing such questions, beginning
with the <www.wetcanvas.com> forums on oil and acrylic
painting where such things as mediums are discussed
frequently, and you can do a search for archived
threads. The Cennini Forum is a good one for oil
painting discussions.
Paul Mesken
I don't think King would like WC very much. It has turned into a
social club where only happy, friendly people are allowed who agree
with everyone else just to keep the peace. A lot of serious amateurs
and professional painters have given up on it. I have talked to some
of them privately (by e-mail) and they expressed their great
disappointment. The moderators are very quick to kick anyone who
starts real discussion (it's not "done" to disagree with each other on
WC). It has become so "fake" (quoting disillusioned professional
painters). I've never been kicked from WC, I think my "gold member"
status prevented such a thing (I love places where you can _buy_
status :-) I, like many others, have simply left on my own.
At least the oil painting forum which I frequented.
Ceninni is great for materials and techniques as long as you don't
step on the toes of its owner, the infamous Rob Howard. He has kicked
a lot of people who didn't agree with him or had some critique on his
products (the Ceninni forum is part of his site which sells his
painting products). But it is the most professional forum I know of,
as far as materials and techniques go. It has a lot of knowledgeable
people and isn't moderated for "niceness" as is WC. I like Rob
Howard's sense of humour and his depth of knowledge but fear his
volatile character and that's why I never joined that forum.
There's also a small forum which is called OAG (On-line Artist Guild).
It has a nicer tone than Ceninni and a couple of knowledgeable people
(which also frequent Ceninni). But whatever you do there : don't ever
suggest that you're critiqueing Rob Howard because its owner (Lori
Kiergaard) is a fanatical fan of Rob Howard. She reminds me of
religious fanatics when it comes down to Rob Howard. She won't
tolerate any critique on Him (note the capital ;-)
Here are some of my finest moments on WC and OAG just for King. Notice
with how much authority I speak based on my beliefs in standards, the
people I addressed didn't seem to mind :-)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205344&page=1&pp=15
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142415&page=2&pp=15
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139716
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204222
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206075
And this is the thread in which good old Jeffrey Gold started some
real discussion which resulted in him being kicked and I leaving (for
the second time, I might add).
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204657&pp=15
There were other threads by Gold which were quickly shut down (locked)
but this one really shows the sensitivities of the inability of the
moderators of the oil painting forum to deal with some less friendly
discussion (nothing like the types of discussion we have here, of
course) and this is where Gold was banned. It went wild. Some threads
occuring after Jeffrey Gold's banning from WC in which
_merely_his_name_ was uttered were shut down and the posters banned.
The moderators showed their real face, that of intolerance.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207071
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206930
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207510
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207372
Here's Jeffrey Gold's homepage : http://www.jeffreygoldstudio.com. It
is completely beyond me why anyone in their right mind would kick such
a great artist who could have offered so much to WC if only they were
less strict in only allowing "social club talk".
This here shows the nature of WC's oil painting forum moderators :
"Any further discussion of jeffreys account removal posted in this
forum will be removed. Failure to comply will result in formal
warnings and possibly account suspensions or removal. The violation
will be considered as harassment.
I am serious about this.
Please do not test me on this, as i am feeling most unprofessional at
this time and would almost welcome the challenge. This nonsense
happens every time that someone gets out of control and believe me,
the rest of us continue on in peace long after the 'problem' has been
resolved. You can be a part of the 'problem' or not. It's your
choice.".
Now, you got to have to ask yourself a question : do I want to be on a
forum that is controlled by somebody like that? Jeffrey Gold was not a
troll. Every single person here would be a troll if Jeffrey is a
troll. He just wanted some serious art discussion.
And here, for King again, are some of my finest moments on OAG :
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=722
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=751
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=794
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=741
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=760
I enjoyed my "encounters" with Carl Toboika and Richard Bingham. They
were serious discussion. We didn't agree always with each other but
from this we learned a lot. This is the kind of discussion that is
"not done" on WC.
And this is the thread that made me leave (again, Jeffrey Gold was
involved :-) It was actually split of from another thread :
http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=793
It went a bit further from that point on but a lot is deleted. It was
just part of a very good thread about materials in which a great many
people attributed a great deal to. The whole thread was taken from the
server (the "non-offending" part was later put back separated from the
"offending part", it's the "head case" thread). But it was put back
too late because by that time I already had left.
I came to the conclusion that the only place where there is no
moderation by idiots (WC), big egos (C) and fanatics (OAG) is this
very place : rec.arts.fine. This place here is the only right one. It
might be infested by spam and trolls but at least we have freedom and
it is in the power of its contributors to make it better. It's just
too bad we can't post images :-)
NightMist
wrote:
>This might be fun too. I wanted to call it "Unusual or Effective Ways
>to Use Acrylic Mediums and Gels", but I thought the generic title
>might be better.
(snip cause I haven't played with the Liqutex stuff yet)
>Anyone else excited by there being so many kinds of gels for acrylics?
Oh yeah.
I grab an 8 oz jar every chance I get just to try them out.
Since I also play with textile design I am mightly happy that there
are so many pigment and medium advances for use in textile arts.
I am going to be snagging some of the Createx Pure Pigments in the
near future to see how well they work in the various fabric and
airbrush mediums. I have already been having fun with Pearl Ex.
> Plus all of those cool iridescent, interference and fluorescent
>colors! I wish there were more analogous materials available for
>oils. That's a good launching pad for someone like Paul, who is very
>into materials--why isn't it possible yet to make things like
>interference oil paints? Is it something unusual about the acrylic
>suspension medium? Or is the "interference" property in the pigment
>itself, and just no one has bothered to use oil, or an oil-compatible
>suspension medium for the pigments yet? (I suppose at least one other
>possibility is the the interference property is in the pigment but
>that oil or oil-compatible suspension mediums cancel it out in some
>way . . . I don't know, obviously).
The thing with the interference colors is that they are 100%
non-absorbant, being just mica flakes with titanium dioxide on one
side.
That would make them a right pain to use in a traditional oil medium.
It has been done in the past with other pigments, for example the
original ultramarine blue was naught but ground Lapis Lazuli. It made
for a very grainy, difficult pigment by all accounts. Due to the
nature of acrylic mediums such non-absorbant pigments are much easier
to use to good effect in them. I should imagine that useing an alkyd
carrier for inteference colors would be much more probable than a
standard linseed base. I have known people who say they have achieved
a good result useing the pigments in more traditional varnishes and
shellacs.
Barbara
--
"It's such a gamble when you get a face"
- Richard Hell
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2004 04:29:46 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
>wrote:
>> Plus all of those cool iridescent, interference and fluorescent
>>colors! I wish there were more analogous materials available for
>>oils. That's a good launching pad for someone like Paul, who is very
>>into materials--why isn't it possible yet to make things like
>>interference oil paints? Is it something unusual about the acrylic
>>suspension medium? Or is the "interference" property in the pigment
>>itself, and just no one has bothered to use oil, or an oil-compatible
>>suspension medium for the pigments yet? (I suppose at least one other
>>possibility is the the interference property is in the pigment but
>>that oil or oil-compatible suspension mediums cancel it out in some
>>way . . . I don't know, obviously).
All these things exist for oil paints. I have a couple of tubes
myself. The iridescent pearl white of Williamsburg can make whites
really "creamy looking". The interference colors change their color
under different angles. I have Williamsburg interference violet which
changes color between green and violet. The pigments themselves can be
bought from Kremer :
http://www.kremer-pigmente.de/intl.catalog/epigmen12.htm
>The thing with the interference colors is that they are 100%
>non-absorbant, being just mica flakes with titanium dioxide on one
>side.
Yes, mica is very popular for these "special effect pigments".
Aluminium is another such pigment. There are other materials used.
In "Introduction to Paint Chemistry" (Bentley and Turner) the
following is said :
"Plate shaped particles tend to overlap one another like tiles on a
roof, making it more difficult for water to penetrate the film.
Aluminium and mica pigments have this shape. Thus more protection is
given with micaceous iron oxide containing paints, and by heat
resistant aluminium paints. Aluminium and specially treated mica
pigments also reflect light from their polished flat faces in metallic
paints.".
So, it's the particle shape that does the special effect.
In the old days crushed glass was used as a special effect (most
notably Rembrandt). Smalt was one of the first I believe (glass with
cobalt blue in it, even before cobalt blue was used as a pigment
itself).
Such glass pigments are indeed quite problematic (I have used two of
them, very finely ground). When adding oil to glass pigment it acts as
if it's sand, the oil and glass keep separating, they refuse to form a
paint no matter how high or low the oil content. Crushed glass also
has a quite large particle size.
Wax or a resin (like dammar varnish, amber varnish, copal, mastic,
etc.) might stabilize things. There's also some use of silica nowadays
(bentonites which "gel" paint) which might help but I've never tried
that (it imparts some interesting thixotropic qualities to paint).
Cal Dia
says...
>I don't think King would like WC very much.
Simply because you have a personal agenda and
an axe to grind, I don't think you have any
right to judge whether others would enjoy
Wet Canvas or any other forum. There is a
tremendous amount of dialogue about mediums
in the Wet Canvas forums that has NOTHING
to do with personalities and EVERYTHING to
do with trying to be helpful, and there ARE
some very knowledgeable individuals who regularly
post there and offer both intelligent and useful
advice. You do people a disservice to denounce
them - let others make up their own minds - and
you do ME a disservice by arguing your personal
problems/dislikes in this manner. I thought you
were a better person than that!
Paul Mesken
>In article <fg2rk01imev9avvae...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>
>>I don't think King would like WC very much.
>
>Simply because you have a personal agenda and
>an axe to grind, I don't think you have any
>right to judge whether others would enjoy
>Wet Canvas or any other forum.
Ah! A WC fanatic.
> There is a
>tremendous amount of dialogue about mediums
>in the Wet Canvas forums that has NOTHING
>to do with personalities and EVERYTHING to
>do with trying to be helpful, and there ARE
>some very knowledgeable individuals who regularly
>post there and offer both intelligent and useful
>advice.
But less and less. This has everything to do with the politics of WC
of which I gave an example. You simply don't want to see the truth.
Those helpfull and knowledgeable people at WC are leaving in great
numbers. Really, if you want techniques and materials then Ceninni is
the place to go. That's where most of the disillusioned WC
contributors go to. If you just want to waste time with some nice
people who all tell you how great you're doing then you should go to
WC.
>You do people a disservice to denounce
>them - let others make up their own minds - and
>you do ME a disservice by arguing your personal
>problems/dislikes in this manner.
It breaks my heart. I guess I should have lied about my experiences
with WC so no sensitve souls would be offended.
> I thought you
>were a better person than that!
Well, guess what? I am not!
Go to your precious WC and have a ball.
*PLOINK*
King Rundzap
discussion in rec.arts.fine?
--King Rundzap
gu...@dontemailme.com (Cal Dia) wrote in message news:<414d...@nntp.zianet.com>...
King Rundzap
> Here are some of my finest moments on WC and OAG just for King. Notice
> with how much authority I speak based on my beliefs in standards, the
> people I addressed didn't seem to mind :-)
>
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205344&page=1&pp=15
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142415&page=2&pp=15
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139716
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204222
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206075
LOL -- Holy cow, I'd say you went a little overboard in a couple of
your critiques, although at the time, at least the artists said they
appreciated it. On the other hand, I notice in checking one of their
websites that they make absolutely no mention of painting, lol. And I
kinda liked that guy's mountain painting (you didn't comment on that
one, but the other one), although I agree it didn't look much like the
picture, but I didn't care. Maybe he did.
I'm more of the school of teaching that believes in working on small
bits at a time, so the student always feels it's _almost_ where they
want it, and you encourage them to make a few smaller changes to get
them closer to their goals. But maybe the "overwhelm them with
criticism" school can work. I'm more of the belief that only small
changes at a time will "stick" anyway, so there's no need to overwhelm
them.
It was fun reading though, and a lot of your comments I agreed with,
since a lot of the artists stated that they were just shooting for
realism :-)
> Here's Jeffrey Gold's homepage : http://www.jeffreygoldstudio.com. It
> is completely beyond me why anyone in their right mind would kick such
> a great artist who could have offered so much to WC if only they were
> less strict in only allowing "social club talk".
Well, a lot of that sounded kinda soap-operish, which turns me off,
and Wet Canvas seems kinda cliquey, which turns me off, too, but I can
see a site like that kicking someone out if they're an asshole. It
wouldn't matter how great they are at their art. I don't know if he
was being an asshole or not, though. Maybe he was like Buddy Rich,
lol.
> This here shows the nature of WC's oil painting forum moderators :
> "Any further discussion of jeffreys account removal posted in this
> forum will be removed. Failure to comply will result in formal
> warnings and possibly account suspensions or removal. The violation
> will be considered as harassment.
Well, it's a private site. They can make whatever policies they like.
> Now, you got to have to ask yourself a question : do I want to be on a
> forum that is controlled by somebody like that? Jeffrey Gold was not a
> troll. Every single person here would be a troll if Jeffrey is a
> troll. He just wanted some serious art discussion.
The whole troll thing seems to be out of whack for years now anyway.
It's not very clear what it is any longer, except that people call
anyone else they don't like a troll, in general.
> And here, for King again, are some of my finest moments on OAG :
Man, how much free time do you think I have? lol. I've got to get
back to work.
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=722
I just skimmed through this one.
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=751
For this one, I thought your comments were kinda funny.
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=794
Most of this thread I just skimmed through. I thought the other guy's
"Of course neon skin is not our aim anyway" was funny. I thought,
"Oh, yeah?"
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=741
Your critique of this one seemed way off-base to me.
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=760
This link didn't work for me.
> I enjoyed my "encounters" with Carl Toboika and Richard Bingham. They
> were serious discussion. We didn't agree always with each other but
> from this we learned a lot. This is the kind of discussion that is
> "not done" on WC.
I think it would be helped a lot by not taking views on particular
aesthetic matters as if they were political positions. To me, that
just leads to locking horns, not learning anything.
> And this is the thread that made me leave (again, Jeffrey Gold was
> involved :-) It was actually split of from another thread :
> http://forumsalon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=793
Oy, this seemed soap-operish and cliquey to me, too. I appreciated
you jumping on the "the only right way" comment, as you could probably
imagine.
> I came to the conclusion that the only place where there is no
> moderation by idiots (WC), big egos (C) and fanatics (OAG) is this
> very place : rec.arts.fine. This place here is the only right one. It
> might be infested by spam and trolls but at least we have freedom and
> it is in the power of its contributors to make it better. It's just
> too bad we can't post images :-)
Good point.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
I thought your first post was suggesting taking the question to Wet
Canvas instead of here, lol.
I get now that you're saying try it there, too.
I agree there are worthwhile things at Wet Canvas, although as I
mentioned above, I noticed some soap-operatic and cliquey things, too.
But the good seems to outweigh the bad in my view.
--King Rundzap
gu...@dontemailme.com (Cal Dia) wrote in message news:<414e07e4$1...@nntp.zianet.com>...
King Rundzap
Interesting comments, Barbara, although I'm not sure I understand them
all yet (the problems with absorbency, the mechanics of alkyds, etc.)
-- I'm definitely still on the upward slope of the learning curve on
materials. I'm learning a lot more about it quickly though. Just a
few years ago, the extent of my knowledge/concern with materials was
basically, "Ew, this smells bad", lol. But I'm having fun
experimenting and learning -- I've been doing a lot more experimenting
in the last year or so. Makes me wish I had been painting prior to
taking chemistry classes in college. It would have made it a lot more
intersting for me, and I probably would have retained the material a
lot better.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:23:42 GMT, nigh...@uir.zzn.com (NightMist)
> wrote:
> >On 19 Sep 2004 04:29:46 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> >wrote:
> >> Plus all of those cool iridescent, interference and fluorescent
> >>colors! I wish there were more analogous materials available for
> >>oils. That's a good launching pad for someone like Paul, who is very
> >>into materials--why isn't it possible yet to make things like
> >>interference oil paints? Is it something unusual about the acrylic
> >>suspension medium? Or is the "interference" property in the pigment
> >>itself, and just no one has bothered to use oil, or an oil-compatible
> >>suspension medium for the pigments yet? (I suppose at least one other
> >>possibility is the the interference property is in the pigment but
> >>that oil or oil-compatible suspension mediums cancel it out in some
> >>way . . . I don't know, obviously).
> All these things exist for oil paints. I have a couple of tubes
> myself. The iridescent pearl white of Williamsburg can make whites
> really "creamy looking". The interference colors change their color
> under different angles. I have Williamsburg interference violet which
> changes color between green and violet. The pigments themselves can be
> bought from Kremer :
>
> http://www.kremer-pigmente.de/intl.catalog/epigmen12.htm
Cool--thanks Paul. I haven't run into Williamsburg yet, but I'll have
to look for them, or someone else who maybe makes it. I'm always
browsing through the paints at my local art supply places, but didn't
notice any iridescents or interference colors in oils yet.
As for buying the pigment and making it, I could do that, but would
prefer not to if I don't have to. I'd rather buy it pre-made, even if
it costs more. I'm not so keen on preparing a lot of the stuff that I
can buy already prepared, it just takes time away from painting and
working on other stuff, in my view, although I can see that someone
would like doing it. But if that's the only way to get iridescent
oils, I might go to the trouble.
If someone can ask Paul if he knows of other companies tubing it, too,
it would help to know which ones.
> >The thing with the interference colors is that they are 100%
> >non-absorbant, being just mica flakes with titanium dioxide on one
> >side.
> Yes, mica is very popular for these "special effect pigments".
> Aluminium is another such pigment. There are other materials used.
> In "Introduction to Paint Chemistry" (Bentley and Turner) the
> following is said :
I should get that book. Hopefully it's not $100 on Amazon or
something outrageous like that.
> In the old days crushed glass was used as a special effect (most
> notably Rembrandt). Smalt was one of the first I believe (glass with
> cobalt blue in it, even before cobalt blue was used as a pigment
> itself).
> Such glass pigments are indeed quite problematic (I have used two of
> them, very finely ground). When adding oil to glass pigment it acts as
> if it's sand, the oil and glass keep separating, they refuse to form a
> paint no matter how high or low the oil content. Crushed glass also
> has a quite large particle size.
Sounds interesting, but problematic. If I couldn't buy it premade, I
doubt I'd have the patience to try to make it work . . . I'd just go
to something that worked instead.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
their paint. I'll check them out later this week.
Thanks again.
--King Rundzap
Cal Dia
kingr...@hotmail.com says...
>LOL -- Now Cal, what kind of support is that for constructive
>discussion in rec.arts.fine?
>
>--King Rundzap
I made the mistake of using specific examples instead
of suggesting that one simply plug the words into
a search engine like Google and see what comes up.
There are many very good web sites out there now that
discuss all sorts of technology in the various arts.
Plus there are the list-servs that one can join.
Unfortunately for some of the people here, they mostly
attract civilized conversation and debate and that
is something that has been sorely missing in this
forum for many years now. And as one who has participated
in RAF for at least the last 10-15 years, I know
something about the "experts in their fields" who have
long ago departed this forum because it stoops to
such lowbrow levels of discourse, name calling, and
uncalled for insults.
Cham Pugh
>I agree there are worthwhile things at Wet Canvas, although as I
>mentioned above, I noticed some soap-operatic and cliquey things, too.
> But the good seems to outweigh the bad in my view.
>
>--King Rundzap
Judging from the volume of posts to Wet Canvas
by someone using your alias, I'd have to say
you certainly are speaking from experience:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217251
Cheers.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
Waddayaknow? King even has a homepage :
http://www.carnybarkermedia.com
His real name is Brandt Sponseller. The bio on his page shows this is
indeed King Rundzap (musician, horror fan, New York based, philosophy,
etc.)
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
>Waddayaknow? King even has a homepage :
>
>http://www.carnybarkermedia.com
>
Well if that's his home page it's no wonder he loves Matisse and
glories in the work of five year old and has to say everything is art.
Art is a label. If someone labels something as art its a waste of time
trying to convince him thats its really something else. The point is
that one man's art can be another man's crap.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
King Rundzap
See--I told you it wouldn't be difficult . . . although I made it much
easier by starting to post to Wet Canvas recently :-)
King Rundzap
By the way, I also gave you a bunch of clues with keywords from my
website. I have pretty good search engine ranking for a lot of my
keywords. Once you read stuff on my site, it would be pretty easy to
figure out it's me.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<l973l0d9hmgj36ssl...@4ax.com>...