Right now I'm trying the Old Holland Alizarin Crimson Lake Extra, and finding it very nice for duplicating the shade of deep red paint on our hallway walls. (I'm painting a figurative interior view in our house.) For the light areas, I mixed it with white and venetian red and a little ultramarine. For the shadow areas, I mixed it with burnt umber, ultramarine, cad orange, and sometimes a little ivory black. Very rich and satisfying! I'm planning on also trying the Vasari color for comparison.

I really had no intention of dismissing it. How does one know (for sure) what exactly is entailed in one's materials ? Since CP "flaxseed oil" available as a health-food item turns rancid if unrefrigerated, what processes entail for cold-pressed oil available as art material, which doesn't go bad?

Nor have I. Question: Is it possible the admixture of pigment stuffs is sufficient to prevent rancidity? Also, it's easy enough to tell when CP goes bad in the bottle, but would rancid paint be readily detectable?

Absolutely. The "old masters" used CP because it was the only extraction process available at the time. Developments in production methods of linseed oil after industrialization have resulted in a range of oils of differing qualities and characteristics.

Again, I heartily agree. Whether these failures have to do strictly with the advent of alkalai refined linseed oil, or in part, with questionable pigment stuffs and equally questionable studio methods is likely unprovable. The major difference was the shift from preparation of paints and materials in individual studios to the industrialized production of paint materials. As we use materials made by others, we remain in the same "materials limbo" as our 19th century predecessors. So far as it's difficult or impossible to learn the exact nature of the materials we use, it's quite impractical if not impossible to re-create 17th century materials and techniques in our own studios.

And eternally debatable, controversial, and decisively unprovable. The collapse of the medieval guild system ended generational transmission of the knowledge of materials and methods from masters to apprentices. This means there really are "lost secrets of the old masters". And that's the most compelling reason for modern painters to learn the all they can about materials and their wherefore. Coupled with extensive practical experience, each of us must make our own "best guess" for using materials and methods that provide the best means for efficiently expressing our art, as well as reasonable assurances of durability.

The "big lie" is that safflower oil and linseed oil are chemically the same . I'm not a chemist; I don't know. I do know there is a world of difference in their using characteristics. With the sea-change in the paint/varnish industry the last 25 years, where synthetic materials have almost entirely supplanted natural oils and resins, the supply of linseed oil has become undependable and the price very high. Safflower oil, however, is produced abundantly and cheaply to supply massive demand in food industries. It's well to remember that art materials represent a miniscule portion of the pigments and vehicles manufactured to supply industry. Convenience and profitability dictate the quality and types of materials that filter down to this small niche. Consequently, better materials (and the full disclosure of contents, etc.) are more likely to be forthcoming from small concerns where artists produce materials for other artists.

That sounds reasonable, except that the requirements for compounding printing inks demand similar qualities from linseed oil as does the making of good oil paint. I have a different experience with the printing industry; "high end" printing and the production of color specialty printing is very concerned with longevity, and the industry supports extensive and rigorous materials standards; we'd be so lucky to have similar research and standards in place for art materials! Finally, simply to say "printers ink" is an over-simplification. Obviously, the same quality and care in material is not going to go into printing the daily newspaper, or common job-printing items. The "workhorse" ink type is rubber based . . . linseed oil inks are in a quality tier that corresponds to the care you use in selecting your oil paint.

Richard,

We can go back and forth on these issues til the end of time. We can certainly agree to disagree. The reason I responded to what you said was because I felt you presented a highly reasonable argument. You are an excellent writer and are able to bring forth your arguments with a great degree of authority. I am greatly impressed.

Unfortunately, being both a superior writer and seemingly reasonable do not necessarily go hand-in-hand with correctness. I remain thoroughly unconvinced as to the superiority of refined linseed oil as a vehicle for paint since cold pressed is, in your own words, "absolutely" superior. I didn't want others to walk away believing that paint ground in alkali refined linseed oil was the best available today. It's not. I have no connections or allegiances with any manufacturers. I in fact distrust them all. Why would any manufacturer using a lesser quality oil be considered, by you, to even be the least bit trustworthy?

As an educator, I always feel it's my responsibility, if I can, to set the record straight. Below, I'm responding to a couple of points you made for the sake of further clarification.


Since I experience no difference in handling of my new and older tubes of paint I believe that rancidity isn't a factor. When something turns rancid, decomposition takes place. Wouldn't this affect the handling and feel of the paint in some way? Wouldn't some artist have noticed this at some point in time? Furthermore I have never had a bottle of CP linseed oil go rancid. I'm sure I'd be able to smell it if it had! If that was the case, wouldn't there be warning labels posted on the bottles? I think the whole issue of rancidity smells more like rhetoric on by a manufacturer trying to justify using lesser materials. Citing cooking oil to make a point about rancidity in artists colors is a stretch, to say the least. In that same vein, justifying the use of an oil in paint composition because it's used in printing is also a case of comparing apples and oranges.


Since cold pressed worked perfectly, why would the "old masters" needed to create something better? The desire to find something better grew out of the obsession of inferior artists trying to uncover a shortcut to honing one's skills. I agree that we now have oils with a greater range of characteristics and qualities, but all are inferior to CP for the purpose of paint mulling.

It's also impossible to create anything better. Personally I think a very good and logical start would be to avoid materials that 17th Century artists didn't use. I believe that materials available today from select manufacturers such as OH and Michael Harding, using traditional materials and methods, are more than up to the task. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Unless we want to cash in, of course.


When I look at the old master's work I don't see any evidence whatsoever of so called "lost secrets", just evidence of skill and understanding. There are no magic mediums. People should, in my opinion resist the urge to seek out magic mediums and focus their energies in the quest for true knowledge regarding approach. That's what I did and for me and my students the results are paying off quite well.

Why? Are you assuming that all these "small concerns" have the best interests of their fellow artists in mind? I believe that it is just as reasonable to assume that someone masquerading as an "artist" who puts "our" best interests first, may in all actuality be putting their own profit motives first, particularly if they are justifying their use of inferior ingredients.

Obviously a company such as Old Holland who uses windmill ground linseed oil does so by bypassing the big bad industrial supply machines. Yes it's more expensive but to me it's a sign of uncompromising zest for quality products. I don't think it takes all that much industrial sophistication to press flax seed under stone wheels. By today's standards, the big companies of the 17th century were very very tiny.

Furthermore, in regards as to my warnings regarding the risks of Maroger medium, alkyds and resins in/or as, painting mediums, there's nothing hypothetical at all. It is a documented fact that in the 18th century paintings created with megilip (Maroger medium) darkened after 100 years. Marroger medium has certainly not been in use for 100 years, so there's no proof that paintings done with it won't darken. Any assumption based on simulated aging is still hypothetical in my book. This is why it's use was abandoned long before being resurrected by Mr. Maroger. Alkyd resins delaminate. I had used them but stopped the day this actually happened to me. Resinous varnishes, like Dammar, darken, yellow and get brittle over time. These things are not reversible. In contrast, many paintings done the "old fashioned" way still look good after 500 years, or more.

People can try to search for the secret to painting in a bottle (of medium) but personally, I believe anyone interested in gaining better insight need look no further than into the mindset of 17th century "old master" artists.

Thanks for the kind words, Marvin. Truly, there are those who paint with resins, and there are those who descry the practise. Like Ford vs. Chevy arguments, neither side will ever accept the viewpoint of the other, it seems. I am not concerned at all by this. I am, however, very interested in the sources and the wherefore of the whole pharmacopaea of materials that comprise oil painting, and I value fora such as this one, where it's possible to have such easy access to the opinions of knowledgeable and experienced painters.

Marvin, I'd be obliged to learn the distinctions and criteria which have led you to form your reasons for being thus convinced. I ask this cordially, in the spirit of a sincere desire to expand what I know about the subject, as quite frankly, I'm not satisfied wiith what I've been able to learn thus far.

Nor do I. I suppose it depends on how one's to know who's lying to you. Even Rembrandt had to have some faith in certain of his sources of supply, though.

I think that's very likely.

CP oil from what source? Oil made from cold-pressing flaxseed will indeed be different from oils extracted by other methods, employing heat and forcing more oil from the seeds than cold-pressing does. Perhaps my experiments have been committed in error, but the cold-pressed flax-seed I obtained from a health-food store was initially refrigerated, and did go "bad" at room temperature. Because of this, I infer that the cold-pressed oils used by some colormen must be refined somehow to prevent this. I'd be glad to learn all about Old Holland's process for making oil, but have been frustrated in attempts to find information on the specific details. That's not to throw rocks at Old Holland; likely, they consider it a trade secret, and they're certainly entitled to that.

There are more similarities than differences; i.e. mulling pigment stuffs into linseed oil to produce a paste which will form a permanent film through oxidation. It may be more like comparing oranges and tangerines? Point taken, they are no way exactly the same thing.

I couldn't agree more. The advantage we have over the "old masters" is that nowadays, we have incontrovertible evidence of the soundness and durability of their methods going back over 500 years. Our problem is to be able to replicate them with reasonable assurance the materials we buy are at least as good.

Marvin, I'm sorry to read in a touch of annoyance and contentiousness in your reply. If I might say so without being branded a "suck-up", not a few good friends of mine have taken your courses, and all speak highly of you. I respect your work, and would admire the chance to buy you a beer. I think you'd find our views on painting materials aren't very adversarial at all.

Yours for better materials, and accurate information about them!
-Richard Bingham

Far as I have been able to find, systematic studies analyzing linseed oils were geared mostly to the paint and coatings industry (and are now very passe). They provided a basis of information for standards applied to the production of linseed oils for meeting criteria for producing paints and varnishes used on ships, barns, houses and machinery, but don't address fine art painting as such. What we are likely to learn from other painters of the recent past and currently, reflects their well-intentioned efforts to apply some semblance of scientific methods to personal experiments.

What you learned from Michael Harding agrees with what little I have been able to learn about cold-pressed oil. The colorman's objection to alkali refined linseed oil has much to do with an ideal ph. Wetting pigment stuffs efficiently requires an oil with a certain acid number. With embarrassed apologies for my own quasi-scientific anecdotes,
I' ve been unable to see marked differences in clarity, film strength or flexibility between cold-pressed and alkali refined oils. However, the test samples are pretty darned young in view of 500 years of oil painting!

Ouch! And yet you'd still be willing to buy me a beer? Maybe I should bring a taster along; perhaps Sharon will volunteer? I've actually been told I'm vaguely charming in person. (Perhaps one of my students can chime in here.) Yet somehow my affability doesn't seen to translate well in the written word. Perception vs reality?

My philosophy regarding materials is really quite simple, I try to use things that have a proved track record. The painting process, as originally developed, was integral, producing archivally sound results. Whether it was simply intuition, or a profound wisdom that we are incapable of recreating through our obsessive technological measurements, their methodologies worked.

According to scientific analysis, bumble bees can't fly. I believe we are far better off spending our time developing our knowledge and skills as well as our intuition. Look inward for the truth. What differentiated the greatest artists was their knowledge and skill, not alchemy.

Heck yes! It would be my privilege. (No taster needed!) It's never been my intent to make anyone sore! And it can be tough communicating this way, without eye contact, inflection or body language to underscore what friendly guys we really are.

I think that philosophy is square on the mark, and I have a feeling the development of the painting process was based on exactly the same kind of pragmatic approach. Painting all manner of items was a pretty ancient practice by the time it was "new" to easel painting . . . over 500 years ago.

Whew!
 

I do think people underestimate the amount of information a serious artist needs.

This discussion belies the notion that an artist is someone who simply picks up a brush, any brush, and daubs some paint, any paint on a surface, any surface. There are those of course who do this because they feel that knowledge is an impediment to artistic freedom.

Thank-you both for engaging in this very enlightening thread. It has helped me a lot!

No I WILL NOT taste test flax-seed oil-yeesh!

Yes, but I think that was after a few beers.
:D yukyukyukyuk.
:D

Linda, Who had the beers? You, me or both?

Richard, I think people are better served by using time tested materials and focusing on developing their drawing and painting skills.