A Master of Acrylics...
Jewel
For those of you who doubt the versatility of
acrylics or the veracity of my claims that
there are things that simply cannot be done
in oils and other traditional mediums, I refer
you to an 'artist's artist' at the following
web site:
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~benm/
Be sure and take a look at Ben's new painting
as he creates it from scratch, beginning with
his method of building the support. He is a
fine craftsman as well as a remarkable artist.
Erik A. Mattila
certainly wouldn't call him an 'artist's artist' however, simply because
his work to too engineered, so to speak. And by this I mean no
disparagement to his work. It's just that many, if not most, artists
prefer to work in a freer manner.
But I honestly don't see why you believe that acrylics is the thing that
makes this possible. It looks to me than any one of his paintings,
carpentry aside, could be created with oils, casiens (which are
chemically very close to acrylics), temperal etc. While acrylics may be
a good, if not the best, solution to problems like time constraints,
ease of work etc. I don't see them as a 'only solution.' Considering
how Mamoud replicates the same imagery over and over, I would say that
it would be quite easy to do in oil -- you would have learned the steps
by rote after a few peeled apples, and you could very efficiently
re-render the apples. He even remarked that he already knew the 'tones'
he wanted, out of context, because he had been painting for 50 years.
If you look at Art History you'll see hundreds of examples of artists
using objects from nature, such as butterfly wings, beetle wing
sheathes, and on and on, in their work long before the technology of
acrylic paints came to be invented.
What acrylics offer is ease of use, fast drying, acceptable color, and
those kinds of attributes. It may be by these convenience that
individuals are encouraged to practice what they consider
'non-traditional' and that's a plus for acrylics, as far as I'm
concerned. I switched to acrylics for these reasons, and also because I
had a tendency to overwork oils to death = simply because one can do
this easily with oils. But in many cases I did miss some of the virtues
of oils, even though the acrylics I was doing were more 'paintery' than
the oils.
And I don't understand why you feel that acrylics are not 'traditional'
since their chemical properties are merely improvements over older
technologies. In some sense they are high-tech renditions of
egg-tempera and casiens, which chemically are very similar in attributes
and performance to the the famous copolymer. Acrylics are a sort of
synthetic milk, I guess.
I remain unconvinced. Hopefully I don't appear to be a complete
blockhead.
Erik Mattila
Jewel
>I remain unconvinced. Hopefully I don't appear to be a complete
>blockhead.
>
>Erik Mattila
I certainly appreciate your point of view and
would not argue that an artist could not achieve
the same results using other mediums. But for
'immediacy' there is nothing that can beat acrylics.
I've never seen oil mediums used for 'collaging'
effects -- certainly it must have been done before
but oil-based varnishes etc are NOT ideal for
most uses beyond their intended ones.
If you choose to NOT work in acrylics there is
certainly nothing I'm going to say against your
choice. But it won't change the fact that acrylics
are truly the most versatile medium currently
available to artists.
And to set the record straight, I use oils as
often as I use acrylics depending on the subject
matter -- and other mediums as my whims dictate.
Peter Nelson
Jewel wrote in message <378bb...@oracle.zianet.com>...
>
>For those of you who doubt the versatility of
>acrylics or the veracity of my claims that
>there are things that simply cannot be done
>in oils and other traditional mediums, I refer
>you to an 'artist's artist' at the following
>web site:
>
>http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~benm/
>
>Be sure and take a look at Ben's new painting
>as he creates it from scratch, beginning with
>his method of building the support. He is a
>fine craftsman as well as a remarkable artist.
I agree that these are well-done and I've added them to my
bookmarks, but I'm not sure how it is that you think you've
demonstrated that the PAINTING part of them (they are mixed
media with paint and metal leaf) could not be done with oils.
Or was it the mixed-media aspect that you were referring to?
If so then your claim is a straw man because everybody knows
that acrylics can be more easily mixed with other media or used as
a support for other media or just plain other materials and objects.
But so what? Acrylics and oils (and gouache and water and pastels
and charcoal etc, etc, ) are all different media with their own
properties.
---peter
andrew mc sweeney
Jewel <em...@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:378bb...@oracle.zianet.com...
>
> For those of you who doubt the versatility of
> acrylics or the veracity of my claims that
> there are things that simply cannot be done
> in oils and other traditional mediums, I refer
> you to an 'artist's artist' at the following
> web site:
>
AAR
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>I enjoyed looking at this site and seeing this artist's fine work. I
>certainly wouldn't call him an 'artist's artist' however, simply because
>his work to too engineered, so to speak. And by this I mean no
>disparagement to his work. It's just that many, if not most, artists
>prefer to work in a freer manner.
>
oils argument across, especially when we were discussing contemporary
arts. Ben admits freely that he is NOT trying to fit into the
*contemporary artist* category and that he just prefers acrylics
(expensive ones).
I prefer to think of Ben's work as *visual philosophy* - kind of a
bridge between that instrument of ritual that art used to be and the
imitation of reality. But the visual experience is so pleasing that one
doesn't necessarily have to understand the symbolic content of his work.
Yet if one does then the experience becomes a whole. Its certainly not a
new concept, is it ?
>But I honestly don't see why you believe that acrylics is the thing that
>makes this possible. It looks to me than any one of his paintings,
>carpentry aside, could be created with oils, casiens (which are
>chemically very close to acrylics), temperal etc. While acrylics may be
>a good, if not the best, solution to problems like time constraints,
>ease of work etc. I don't see them as a 'only solution.' Considering
>how Mamoud replicates the same imagery over and over, I would say that
>it would be quite easy to do in oil -- you would have learned the steps
>by rote after a few peeled apples, and you could very efficiently
>re-render the apples. He even remarked that he already knew the 'tones'
>he wanted, out of context, because he had been painting for 50 years.
I can't see why either. Ben's is a master of his own technique - a very
accomplished painter. His work isn't about the medium but rather about
the message. There is no doubt that he has perfected his own technical
needs through acrylics, but it could easily have been through oils
instead. Most people just love the sensuality of oils and the smell ...
and the mess ! Ben doesn't. Its as simple as that.
What was the original argument ?
--
AAR
Jewel
>acrylics are dull,says andrew
adullardwouldknowsezjewel
Larry Seiler
advantages. I wonder how many like myself paint "fluently" with oils,
acrylics...and watercolor?
I'm looking forward to when my host for my work finds time to scan in
and make available to me about 25 new images. On my site currently, my
landscapes show some of my more recent work, yet they are more the
in-studio variety. Of the 60 or more paintings I've done in the last
several months, perhaps more than 1/2 have been painted as plein airs of
landscapes. Others in studio.
If we simply think of the medium on terms of languages, we've all met
individuals that can speak 2-4 languages fluently.
The problem is that the market perceives a greater value for example on
oils, and those of us working in each medium especially are frustrated
that we may at one moment be considered a lesser artist for using a more
untraditional form, while praised the next minute for oils.
Quite honestly...acrylics offer incalcuable immediacy, effect, attention
to detail. It is the perfect medium for the draftsman...that is, one
given to the disciplines of drawing, for the paint can be approach with
a smaller round and literally drawn with a building up of line hatching,
cross hatching, etc., and then a light transparent wash to pull it
together.
Mix a little "gelex" with the paint, (made by Liquitex), and it gives
oil like drag and impasto appearances.
I have several large works in a gallery of Wild Wings (Lake City) and
Grassland (Mall of America) for which have been mistaken for oils using
this medium. They have infact been mistaken for oils by the gallery
owners themselves! I had to inform them after being hung that the tags
identified them wrong.
Here's a couple of the acrylics mistaken for oils-
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler/images/34-500w.jpg
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler/images/38-500w.jpg
I've been enjoying immensely going back to oils after what some here
might think has become for me a mastery of acrylics. To me...there is
no mystery to using acrylic. Only overcoming your own impatience to
remain focused and labor until it appears exactly as you want it to.
The paint allows near immediate correction...and the only thing to
master is yourself, that is- your own impatience and shortsightedness.
I've enjoyed oils because it is thick...wet...moves around. For me
painting plein airs requires more "suggestion" of detail and mastering
illusion. Trusting more your ability to manipulate the viewers eye with
color..contrast, and brushstrokes than stating a thing literal.
Now of course...you can layer and do glazes indefinitely with oils and
take six months to a year to complete one. But why? You can lay layers
of glaze five minutes after an area of acrylics dry.
I'm finding a charm and a freedom to oils.
Here's where I'm at- I do my oils spontaneously, carefree and fun, and
usually smaller, (under 12"x 16"). If a gallery demands a large piece
and detailed, I do acrylics. If I want it to appear as oil, I'll paint
it on canvas and add "gelex" and use more palette knives to lay paint on
impasto'ish.
If I'm painting in a touristy area and wouldn't mind selling works right
off the easel...well, oils are rather inconvenient (though look great)
and you'll lose the spontaneous sale. If they go away thinking about
it, they'll get the gitters and not buy. Not because they didn't like
the work, but they start thinking about how many times they could go to
a movie and put their minds in neutral for that money.
I'll do acrylics because they can immediately walk away with the work.
Or..I'll do watercolors because they are more affordable.
About 3 months ago, I began doing some watercolors...which I haven't
done for nearly 20 years.
I bought a Winsor Newton Cotman field watercolor box. Small, unfolds
like a transformer toy, and even has a built in water flask. I decided
to ignore approaching them as watercolors with broad transparent washes,
etc., and used smaller rounds and thought more like an impressionist
painting marks of color. I was quite literally surprised with the ease
and the look. Small 6" x 9"'s that looked quite realistic, colorful,
painted in about 30 minutes. They were satisfying to my eye. An ease
to paint, and it suddenly hit me...something that could sell and afford
my habit to paint the other things. I'll try and get a few of these up
for viewing as well. My host/web designer said in a few weeks.
Now...here is something that I feel is little spoken of here on this
group, and I wish it would be addressed more: we argue about the
market, about the medium...about what art IS or IS NOT...(Ssheesh), but
what about the way we've disconnected the "doing" of what we doing from
a public?
Have you noticed the buying frenzy of a public that just sees a great
band play at a festival? They run to the bands exhibition booth and buy
CD's and shirts like crazy. They connected the experience with the
imagining of calling up images later at the homes listening to the CD
over and over. Closing their eyes laying back in their easy chair, and
seeing the band members jammin' away, while crankin' the speakers.
What if there were no live performances, and everyone was simply
expected to buy their music at the music stores? Where would the
industry be today?
I have noticed that by taking my easel OUT of the studio into the public
square, that the public is simply mesmerized and immediately interested.
They are amazed and think the artist gifted. They connect the "doing"
with the art "done" and anticipate it bringing greater aesthetic
pleasure because of it. Why then...are we artists not making
"ourselves" rather than our art more accessible to the public?
peace,
Jewel
>
>Its been state here a couple times that each medium offers its
>advantages. I wonder how many like myself paint "fluently" with oils,
>acrylics...and watercolor?
I don't know what you mean by 'fluently' but I paint
AND draw in all mediums.
But here is one I've yet to mention in regard to
the versatility of acrylics. I have created a few
works that I refer to as 'sun catchers' using
acrylic paint on acrylic sheet (window glazing)
material. I purchase the glazing sheets at a
builder supply where it is sold in various sizes
which I guess are standard window sizes. I cut
the sheet to the size I need by scoring it deeply
with a box cutter then 'snapping' it off on a
table edge.
I prefer the 'look' of leaded glass so I first
outline my 'pattern' or image with heavy black
lines using either a riggers brush or the edge
of my painting knife, depending on the thickness
of the line. Once this 'leading' is dry, I fill
in the colors. It doesn't have the permanence
of leaded glass, and can be scratched off if not
handled with some degree of care, but the ease
of creation is what appeals to me versus working
with actual leaded glass.
One caveat. I first scrub the acrylic sheet with
rubbing alchohol on a soft paper towel to remove
any oily residue that might interfere with the
application of the medium/paint mix. I haven't
found it necessary to use a wetting agent and
the adherence when dry is very good considering
the slickness of the surface used. You can't
get the same degree of adherence using ordinary
window glass, so I would advise against using it.
PS The frosted version of acrylic would probably
afford even greater adhesion strenth if you
don't mind the appearance of the frosted glass.
I've not tried it since it's not available at
a builders supply that I've found. You can get
it at a glass shop. Also, acrylic sheet from a
glass shop can be bought in various colors,
smoked, etc.
PS PS Engravers and etchers would do themselves
a great favor by trying acrylic sheet instead
of using metal plates. I've printed editions
of 50 or so without any noticeable degradation
of the image using an intaglio press.
alexei...@my-deja.com
classical painting technique. In this course I
tried to answer the most frequently asked
questions. The video format proved to be the best
to reproduce the atmosphere of a live workshop.
Besides, a video course has certain advantages:
you can stop the movie, rewind and play the place
that interests you.
http://www.1art.com/video.htm
Alexei Antonov
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.