A No-lead Maroger medium?
 

I recently got some info. from Gamblin. It seems that they have manufactured a new medium called "Neo Megilp"and here is what they say...

"Neo Megilp is a 21st century formulation of one of the Old Master's true secrets. This soft gel impasto, originally called "Maroger" medium, can create a unified atmospheric, dimensional layer into which low viscosity color can be floated. Painters in the 18th century knew that this combination of lead boiled in oil and mastic varnish darkens significantly over time but still used it."

"New Megilp, based on alkyd resin, is made without lead, turpentine or natural resins. The soft silky gel has less drag on the brush than the Galkyds."

"New Megilp 90% + oil colors 10% make a soft glaze impasto that is slow drying."

Neo Megilp is listed as having medium cohesion and moderate drying times.

I have always wanted to use the old Maroger medium but have avoided it because of its lethal content. I am really anxious to try this new medium....has anyone else used it yet?

Karin,

I

Sounds great. I was disappointed with Galkyd precisely because of the "brush drag". The **** stuff tacks up so quickly, it's very difficult to achieve consistent glazes over large areas, even when thinned out with OMS. I immediately went back to Liquin.

Since I haven't yet found a Gamblin distributor in my area I'll have to mail-order. Whoever uses Neo Megilp first, please post your thoughts!

It's Great!
 

I finally got my hands on a (small) sample of Neo Megilp (One local art store is giving away perhaps 1/2 oz. bottles of either Neo Megilp, Galkyd, or Gamsol with the purchase of two tubes of Gamblin oil colors), and it seems to be everything it's advertised to be (as in the new Gamblin "Oil Painting Mediums" brochures in art stores): A soft, silky gel that -- at least in my LIMITED experiments -- "melts" away brushmarks and leaves an "enamel-like" finish with color glowing from within.

I can appreciate what Turner and others saw in such stuff (My favorite term is "Ruben's Jelly").

And like the thicker true gel mediums, Gamblin says (as Karin quoted) you can add up to 90% Neo Megilp to 10% paint for an impasto glaze -- you're not supposed to add anywhere near that much of any other medium to your paint (the standard advice is that the strongest paint films are pure paint, although the Old Masters used handground paints that were much more fluid than today's tube paints).

It's truly "thixotropic" -- it looks like a stiff gel (which may hurt its sales, "off the shelf"); but it liquefies upon stirring or brushing, and then sets back up when left undisturbed (Amazing!).

Over at least my small test area, the "pull" was nice, not tacky (like gloss medium, for fellow former acrylic painters); and it doesn't "puddle" like more fluid media.

David, here's an idea I just read for reducing the tackiness of Galkyd, although slowing its drying somewhat: Add 10% stand oil (but no more, to prevent wrinkling). Just an idea from that new brochure.

Neo Megilp smells about like Galkyd (which has less "bite" than Liquin, to my nose), and includes Gamsol (which is virtually odorless, as opposed to the equally safe Sansodor).

It's not yet in our Los Angeles area stores, but I understand from Gamblin it's on its way (maybe in a week or two).

By the way, when asking for it, it's pronounced "NEE-oh muh-GILP" (Don't be surprised if the sales people laugh -- tell them how it's spelled).

The information about Neo Megilp can be found on the following page of the Gamblin website...

http://www.gamblincolors.com/mediums/mediums.html

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's from Gamblin, it should be as safe as can be for us artists and also of conservation quality, based on his alkyd resins.

And here's some information (Please see a later post) about the original megilp and maroger mediums...

http://www.jamescgroves.com/meguilp.htm

Good luck!

P.S. Hope you're feeling better, Karin (Get lots of fresh air whenever you can)!

From Mr. Gamblin
 

Mr. Robert Gamblin, President of Gamblin Artists Colors Co. and

It was worth the trip!
 

I really enjoyed working with the Neo Megilp!

The only problem is that it dries slowly (typically two to three days between coats); and if you try to rush it, the topcoat will lift some of the undercoat -- you'll start "rolling up" little "pills" of paint film.

But properly handled, the paint blends and levels beautifully; and the glazes glow!

Here's my first effort, for Downing ART Auction Ltd., outside of Chicago (Mr. Downing & I are very pleased)...

Thanks again, Mr. Gamblin!

I tried the Neo-Megilp and LOVED the way it felt on my brush.....BUT......the drying time (days - maybe more) is much too long for impatient me.

Liquin makes me sick and I can no longer use it. Dang. But Gamblin's Galkyd Lite seems a good substitute and it drys overnight.

I am using it to finish up all the paintings that I started with Liquin....and it is working out well. Whew.

William,

I am also intimately familiar with maroger and also have made it and used it for years. I love the handling of maroger for pieces particularly when I want passages to dry overnight. The smell is wonderful!

I received a sample of Gamblin's product called "Neo Megilp". It doesn't say what's in it except for a warning for petroleum distillate. I used it test swatches only. This stuff smells like model airplane glue - nasty! I am not a big fan of Gamblin's products so there is little chance I am going to slather this stuff on any of my work. It takes about 3 days to dry! BTW, for all of you paranoid lead users, Titian lived to the ripe age of 91, but there again he might have been using Gamblins products!...L

I still love Neo Megilp (and all the other Gamblin products I've tried).

Based on alkyds, it does have a distinct odor. However, to me, it is not as strong as Galkyd (which is much less "acrid" than Liquin); and being "thixotropic" (gel-like when undisturbed, liquid when agitated), I only notice the odor when I first dispense it from a squeeze bottle onto my palette -- after it sets a few minutes, the initial odor dissipates and any further significant odor seems to be trapped within the substance. Overall, the slight odor has not bothered me; and I am VERY sensitive to chemical odors.

As far as the working time (2 to 3 days between coats), I find that I can alternate working on different sections of a painting, or even on different paintings -- something that Titian et al. often did (He'd even leave a painting for weeks or months and then come back to it for a "fresh look").

As far as the original maroger and megilp mediums, they eventually caused paintings to darken and crack -- which I've seen no evidence of alkyd mediums doing.

Finally, I wouldn't wish lead poisoning on anyone -- it is an insidious, cumulative poison of the nervous system, including the brain, notoriously (but not exclusively) of children. If you wish to work with lead, that's your perogative; but a person's got a right to know the real-world risks (a luxury Titian and others in the days before modern science did not enjoy).

Along those lines, I also like Gamblin's "flake white replacement" -- a mixture of titanium and zinc whites with the "stringy" handling and other famous qualities of the original, lead white. Note, however, that with a significant zinc content, it does not have the tinting or hiding power of pure titanium white (which tends to be more chalky).

Back to the easel!

Well, lets clear up a few points here.

The desire by artists to make a thixotropic light colored medium, lead painters to mix mastic varnish with

I value all your research, Leopoldo; and I respect your decisions as an artist

Leopoldo, Long ago, the toxic and sometimes lethal effects of the build-up of lead in the soft tissues of the human body was unrecorded because it was unknown.

And I am always amazed by the few artists who feel that we all should ignore the potential hazards and use lead paint because they do.

I think that using lead paint is a wee bit like jumping out of airplanes...maybe you will get hurt, maybe you won't....but the more you do it, the greater your chance of harming yourself. It obviously isn't for everybody.

:? How do you dispose of your cadmium and lead-laden spent brush cleaner in a manner that is safe to the environment?

Doug,

The issues of the use of maroger, like always, seems to continue to be debated. If the evidence of its failures were so conclusive, I believe artists would have discontinued its use years ago. I have several paintings done exclusively with this medium that date back more than 10 years with no visible signs of deteriation, but I do have paintings that cracked with the use of liquin! Years ago, I was introduced to maroger by David Leffel, in his work that he rendered so beautifully using this medium. The handling qualities of maroger are wonderful, particularly when it is applied with loaded brushes in ala prima techniques.

As an artist, I find myself in a continued state of evolution, exploring new horizons to keep from being completely bored from repetition. One of those areas is in the use and exploration of different mediums like maroger, wax, copal, canada balsam, amber, stand oil or just plain linseed oil. I found each has its place. I have moved to a point in my work, where I don

Karin,

I haven't come to that problem yet since I reconstitute my turps after the settling process from a large container. Eventually the sludge will be high enough where it will have to be contained in a leak proof vehicle, encased in cement and driven over to Hanford Nuclear Waste Disposal site in the state of Washington. Just kidding Karin, it will be disposed locally for hazardous materials. It certainly is the responsibility of artists that choose hazardous materials in their work to be environmental aware!..L

Everytime I sit down to paint, I take my turp from the last session and carefully, so as not to disturb the sludge at the bottom, pour it into another clean plastic container. Then I wipe out the grey sludge with a paper towel. (Maybe I should save all the sludge in a container and make my own version of grey much like Gamblin does.) I never really have leftover Turps to dispose of. Now, living in Nevada near the test site, it is a local joke about how we all glow anyway.

I decant my brush cleaner too...but at some point it just becomes exhausted.

Marta, if you use lead, cadmium, etc. will the government's new toxic dump site take your sludge laden, flammable paper towels?

Sometimes, I think that the proper disposal of toxic materials is more important than the use. Way back when I was a signpainter, we only used heavily leaded paints. I paid the owner of a local gas station to add my spent thinners into his toxic material for disposal.

Many of my colleagues did not bother to do this...they dumped the stuff down the nearest drain or poured it out in the backyard. Alas, burning these materials does not rid the environment of the heavy metals either.

:(Sadly, I suspect that many "fine artists" are probably clueless about what to do with used turps. and toxic (and flammable) old paint rags. It is easier to just not use toxic materials.

On the topic of darkening paintings, an artist friend of mine told me that if some darkening occurs and the paints were mixed with linseed oil and some maroger, if you set the painting out in the sun for a day, it will lighten right up. He makes his own maroger and I thought he said he uses beeswax--maybe I'm just confused, which happens alot, lol. I've started using maroger and I can't live without it now, and the smell is like aromatherapy! Maybe this neo stuff by Gamblin is better and I hope to try it eventually, but I'm hesitant to do so because of a bad experience I had.

I ran into a problem with Gamblin Galkyd Lite. I had been painting for less than a year and some of my paintings had very patchy glossy and matte areas. It was suggested that I could cover the surface with Galkyd Lite to even it out, and later apply varnish. The GL only made the surface worse. I took the painting to a friend who restores old paintings for advice and she called the effect bubbling. Her associate who was trained in restoration in France glazed my painting (it took three coats to even out the surface) and he said in 10 years the GL will start to darken. They told me linseed oil, turpentine, a little maroger and nothing else! I was also told to write on the stretcher that I had used maroger because if the painting is ever restored that information will be very helpful.

My, all the interesting topics people bring up! Let me see if I can throw in my two cents' worth.

On the topic of reversing the darkening of paintings, let me quote from Ralph Mayer's The Artist's Handbook:

"Several much-quoted letters written by Rubens recommended exposure to sunlight for certain oil paintings that had in each case been boxed soon after being painted, and stored for some time. For centuries artists have known that freshly painted oils should be exposed to daylight under normal conditions, that continual or severe exposure to bright, direct sunlight is not beneficial [it leads not only to fading of the pigments but also to embrittlement of the paint film, particularly if there is any resin in the painting medium], and that the darkening of oil paintings from continued absence of light during the drying process is a reversible reaction that can be corrected by further exposure to daylight."

As for beeswax in megilp, Pam, you may not be confused (Confusion is my middle name). Although beeswax is not typically added to megilp (as in the recipes I cited in the post above), there is a famous exception. In http://www.lavendera.com/paint%20tech/maroger.htm there are six recipes for maroger, including...

"Fourth Lead Medium (attributed to Peter Paul Rubens)

"This medium was allegedly based on the black oil of Giorgione with an addition of mastic resin, Venice turpentine and beeswax. One or two parts litharge or lead white, combines by cooking with 20 parts raw linseed or walnut oil. A little more that one spoonful of 'black oil' combined with even one spoonful of mastic varnish resulted in the 'jelly' medium thought to be Megilp (another name of Maroger mediums)."

As for evening out glossy and matte patches -- which I find often occur in areas of different pigments, with different capacities for oil absorption, or in areas where I have handled paint differently, particularly areas I've touched up (perhaps evidence of the "suede effect" attributed to the alkali-refined linseed oils typical of modern oil paints) -- there is this from a current Gamblin brochure:

"If you would like to unify the surface and saturate the colors without varnishing, consider a clear glaze layer of Galkyd or Galkyd Lite, thinned with 50% odorless mineral spirits."

That worked for me (at least so far, in the short run -- I will varnish in 6 months or more).

From Mr. Gamblin himself, I received the following in an e-mail:

"When the work is done, and all that is left to do is to determine the surface gloss, then we are in the domain of varnish and not medium. I would use the Gamvar [Gamblin's specially formulated varnish], but make a 'retouch' concentration. Add an additional two parts solvent so that you have a very light coating of the varnish. This is standard practice. If you use a painting medium then technically you have glazed the painting but the glaze has no color, except for any color change the medium goes through. If there is linseed oil in that glaze then it will warm up the painting over time."

Once again, after 6 months it is typically beneficial to varnish, although that, too, will change the overall look of the work.

As for the stability of paintings created with alkyd mediums over time, Gamblin states (http://www.gamblincolors.com/newslet...sletter07.html):

"Galkyd painting mediums speed the drying time of oil colors and increase their flexibility. Galkyds will not yellow over time."

And I'm sure Winsor & Newton makes similar claims for Liquin.

As I've said, some impartial experts say it's too soon to tell; but the consensus seems to be that paintings done with alkyds are at least as durable as those done solely in oil (and probably more so than those done with mediums incorporating natural resins, even soft mastic).

I would be interested in seeing any sound, controlled scientific data (i.e. not just "anecdotal" evidence) for long-term or accelerated aging studies of oil paintings executed using mediums with alkyd resins.

Finally, on the topic of toxic materials, I must admit to using cadmium yellows and reds (I prefer their more "earthy" tints, tones, and glazes to those of modern pigments; and I value their lightfastness and, in many instances, their opacity). However, I use the colors from Gamblin, who claims that their cadmium colors are "made from chemically pure cadmium of low toxicity (no health warning labels required)." Here in California, however, with the strictest environmental standards in the country if not the world, there indeed is a standard warning label on all cadmium materials, although the indication seems to be that the major danger is from inhalation via spraying.

Nevertheless, from the official MSDS filed by Gamblin for their cadmium reds and oranges (there is a similar statement for the yellows) -- found at http://www.gamblincolors.com/msds/cadredorago.html -- comes the following:

"OSHA has chosen to regulate occupational exposure to all cadmium compounds, including pigments, as a single category. The standard states that substances containing cadmium are a cancer hazard and can cause lung and didney [sic] disease.

"Cadmium and cadmium compounds are listed in the Annual NTP Report as carcinogenic to animals, but with only limited evidence of carcinogenicity to humans. This information is based on test results for cadmium compounds other than pigmentary forms.

"Although certain cadmium compounds are known to cause kidney damage in humans and has [sic] been shown to cause lung cancer in laboratory animals, no chronic health effects have been shown to result from exposure to cadmium pigments. Cadmium pigments have been shown to be significantly less biologically available and less active than other cadmium compounds...

"No known medical conditions aggravated by exposure to cadmium oil paints...

"Small amounts can be dried and disposed of as ordinary trash."

As every locality has its own standards and methods of trash and sewage disposal and treatment, I'm not going to touch that topic with a ten-foot pole.

Cheers!

I have recently tried the Neo-Meglip, and while I thought it was a decent alkyd medium, a maroger or meglip it is not...

It is tacky and sticky, and while true Maroger can be like this as well, it is not to the same extent. None the less, for those not wanting to work with lead compounds, it's a decent quasi choice on limited levels. It definitely drys with a similar glossy and slick finish ala Maroger, but not as glossy and to my eye, it has that slight "plasticy" look that the highly processed alkyd mediums have.

Also one of the great advantages of a true jelly Maroger is the fact that once you stop moving it around with your brush on your ground , it sets up rather quickly (thixotropic), often allowing you to make fast layers over another, while still wet, within even minutes at times (although a few hours is more like it); I found this harder with the Neo-Meglip, as it seems tackier and stickier even though it sets up like a classic Maroger. But when I tried to layer over the Neo-Meglip after a few hours, the lower layer would come up and create a mess, negating the best reason to use a jelly medium in the first place. Quick layering with a jelly medium (which is why Rubens was so fond of this medium) was much harder with Gamblin's Safe And Friendly Maroger in my opinion. Wet on wet layering is one the strongest reasons to use a Maroger medium.

I have been using a pre-made Maroger--LeFranc & Bourgois's Flemish medium, in conjunction with their black oil mixed into the paint nuts on my palette and WOW... I can see now, as much as I HATE the phrase, "Secret of the old masters", why it is used for this medium so much...

My paintings with this combination have wonderful depth, gloss and a certain scintillation that was lacking previously (although a good stand oil/Venice turps medium comes close, but takes FOREVER to dry). Of course this is not JUST as a result of the medium; the planning and execution of many layers and glazes, and always utilizing light and transparent darks and opaque heavy lights is a huge factor as well (not to mention paying attention to edges...!)

But this last weekend, at the Getty Museum here in L.A., as I stood before Rubens and many of the Flemish masters works (Jan Van Huysen in particular), a certain little bit of the mystery of how they did what they did was suddenly freed in my mind--particularily Rubens who loved to paint alla prima-ish as much as possible, avoiding a heavy layered classical approach.

Although it certainly isn't the safest thing in the world, if your really interested in painting like the great artists of the 16th and 17th centuries, I would recommend you check out Maroger and Black oil mediums, as well as Mastic varnish in a medium combination. There is just something to it that is hard to describe...

Best,
Todd

Todd,

Your enthusiam and professionalism are inspirational!

I

For anyone truly interested in Marogers medium and it's history and usage, here is a site that has put up the famous article from the March 1976 issue of American Artist magazine:

http://CarolAllisonArt.com/Article.html?

This article went far in terms of spreading the word about the Maroger mix and is still quoted in circles that talk about this medium, it's recipes, and it's applications... It's worth checking out if you have an interest in this medium/topic.

Douglas--Yes, I like that Vermeer sight very much and have had frequent visits there. But the artist I was mentioning is very different--his name is JAN VAN HUYSUM, a Flemish still life painter from the early 18th century. His florals are exquisite in detail (he often painted things with a single sable hair). He only adds to the mystery though, as his paintings are in superb condition (albiet some fugitive greens), and he was militant about not allowing anyone in his studio, so hardly anything is known about his techniques...?

Doulgas, when you say that all paints dry to a plasticy finish--what is your experience with natural oils and resins? Besides Maroger, a basic mix of stand oil and a balsam will also dry to a wonderful jewel like finish that is not plastic like.

But as you say, different strokes for different folks... It is my sincerest ambiton to paint as the masters did (and as most modern artists do NOT). And thankfully, one true blue FACT of art is that we definelty know that the old masters did not use any alkyds.

I suppose if I wanted to paint like more modern artists, I would abandon such old fashioned things such as linen and dangerous lead and utilize polyester and alkyds...

But I don't, so I haven't... I also work in egg tempera, and every time that I prepare a traditional gesso panel (again with old fashioned out date things like hide glue and marble dust), and make my paints with pure pigments, egg yolk and water, I am always in awe that I am using the same materials and techniques that Michaelangelo used--and how effective they still are...

Best,
Todd

Please excuse my trying to cut this short

There is probably more uninformed opinion concerning the subject of megilp/Maroger than there is about the building of the pyramids. I am a partner in a firm devoted to introducing the finest examples of hard-to-find materials to serious artists. It is owned by a group of working artists who, over several decades, shared information and sources and did a lot of testing. Over the years, artists would drop by our studios for a cup of this or a tube of that and, eventually the idea dawned on us that there might be many more artists interested in getting the best glue or balsam or mediums. So we started a small business devoted to finding the best stuff available and splitting it into small quantities (just like we'd been doing amongst ourselves). It's worked out to be a good thing for all concerned.

A number of years ago I came to the realization that what was happening with artists materials involved a lot of chemistry, so I went back to school to study it. Man, what an eye-opener that was! Like most artists, I thought that mixing this oil with that resin was just a physical thing...that they were separate entities, eg. I thought that damar mixed with oil could later be dissolved if turpentine were applied to the dry surface of the painting. Was I ever wrong!

Making mediums is a complex thing and you simply cannot add a dollop of oil to alkyd or any other medium and expect it to not affect it on a profound chemical level. It became clear that most artists destroy their own paintings by treating medium-making as something to be indulged in lightly...like making a burger.

Years ago, I was an advocate of alkyds and thought they offered a number of advantages and few disadvantages. I believed the manufacturer's advertising copy. For some reason, the fact that Liquin was turning a deep red in the bottle did not register until it was too late.

Alkyds offer many advantages, but the advantages accrue to the manufacturers, not the painter. Linseed oil is like any other natural commodity, it is subject to wild market fluctuations. Mother Nature is notoriously unstable and if the gowing season is too short or too dry, the price of linseed oil skyrockets. On the other hand, the supply of phthalic anhydride and pentaerythritol are available in tank car lots from companies such as GE, PPG, Sherwin-Williams and Mil-Spec. Modify it with a cheap and readily available oil like soya or tobbaccoseed oil and suddenly the paint-making industry had changed.

For large commercial paint manufacturers (not artist's paints) alkyds were a godsend. The supply was stable and not ruled by two oil conglomerates (ADM and Cargill). It was much cheaper to produce and it did not involve all of that dangerous and tricky varnish making that oil-based paints required. Even better, that other tightly controlled conglomerate that makes turpentine, was cut out of the loop. Oil-modified alkyd was easily thinned with kerosene (sold under the rubric of 'mineral spirits' and -- to artists as Turpenoid and the other '-oids').

It was a great discovery for the paint manufacturers. It was cheaper...much cheaper. Okay, so the quality wasn't as good as the finish produced by well-made oil paints and varnishes, but the manufacturers no longer needed to hire those highly-paid varnish makers who had turned that tricky occupation into an art form. Now they could hire burger flippers to unload tank cars of the stuff, pour it into vats to make paint, and it was almost as good...well, that's a very big almost.

It was a while before, in preparation to being bought out by ComArt, W&N jumped on the alkyd bandwagon. It made them profitable and a attractive target for a merger. They mixed bentonite in with the alkyd and produce Liquin. Different additives made it into Oleopasto and WinGel. Still, it was all just the same old alkyd from the same tankcar, mixed with different stuff to make it handle differently. The profit margin was immense and, as a result W&N was able to phase out their difficult-to-make Double Mastic (an ingredient in Maroger's medium). Profits soared. Mergers went through. Stockholders were elated. But were artists happy? Sure. They didn't know enough to not be happy.

As a wag once said, you can get people to sit on a porcupine if you first exhibit it in a museum as a chair. The same can be said about artists and their materials. I speak from embarrassing experience when I say that the vast majority of us haven't the foggiest notion of what we're doing and even less about the materials we use and how they are made. Most artists use one medium throughout a painting. Perhaps that's an offshoot of believing that one size fits all, but it's a disaster to a painting. A good example is that old paintings do not show where glazes were applied whereas on most new paintings, glazes are glaringly obvious as being something different from the body of paint.

Over the years, I have gotten to know many of the people in tha art materials manufacturing industry. Some are exceptionally honest and dedicated. The management at Old Holland and Robert Doak are examples of this small, dedicated group. Many are cynical profiteers. Sadly, those are the guys who can hire the best copywriters and ad agencies to convince the average artist that their neo-rose madder is lovingly strained through Rhine maiden's hair.

People quote books like Ralph Mayer's book, which has by default become the bible. Among those chemists in the business, he ranges from a joke to dangerously opinionated. Estimates range from an error rate of 20% to more than 50%. On his way to establishing a reputation, Mayer had an axe to grind and set out to diminish the reputations of anyone else who wrote a column on art technique. He was determined to be the grand fromage in art writing and he succeeded. He was mercilous with rivals. This, and the equally fallacious De Mayerne are the sources most often quoted by well-meaning but woefully uninformed artists.

I have no doubt that the Gamblins are charming people. They certainly are good businessmen and have the intelligence to hire convincing public relations writers. They were able to parlay their connection with what has been called "America's Attic" (the Smithsonian Institute) into a belief that it is a bona fide art museum...in reality it's a collection of toys, electric chairs, pickled frogs, stuff from Barnum's museum, airplane parts and a small collection of paintings...much smaller than at a prep school gallery like Phillips Andover. The Barnum connection may be an indication of what it takes to be declared (by the copywriter) "America's foremost colorman." I guess Munsell and Birren are chopped liver.

What I object to most is basing one's sales on creating fear in the buyer. Whether it's fear of bacteria (must wash with this expensive anti-bacterial soap...you never know where that doorknob has been), or fear of traditional pigments (rather than learn how to handle them like sentient adults, just ban them), or destruction of the environment (the one that recovers from volcanic eruptions, like Mount Tinatubo, that darken the skies for years but will collapse under the weight or burning leaves).

A quick look at the politically correct pigment list shows that all of the "objectionable" pigments have been replaced with pigments that have one common thread going through them...they're cheaper! Before the scare about cadmiums, barium pigments were considereed to be distinctly second-rate and were used only in student grade paints by Utrecht. Rutile titanium oxide is one-third the cost of basic lead carbonate. It's also one-third as durable (that's why they use lead paint to paint the lines in highways...titanium stripes would be gone in a week). Titanium just sits like a dead lump in the oil, whereas lead changes the oil and makes it much stronger (remember it's a chemical change that happens).

Maroger's medium is very tricky to make. It's so tricky (and expensive) to make that some once-reliable French companies offer a tubed-up gel made with oil and lime. Basically, it's a soft soap and absolutely deadly to the paint. They proudly proclaim that it's lead free. Hey, it's the lead that makes oil strong and causes the chemical reaction.

Maroger's is made from two basic ingredients; black oil and double mastic. Double mastic is made from the very expensive ($200 per kilo) mastic tears dissolved in turpentine (another scary product that causes absolutely no documented harm). It must be made with twice as much mastic tears as is used in making the best single mastic varnish on the market ($157.20 per litre). It's not difficult to make, but expensive because there's a fair amount of waste (bugs and dirt in the tears) as well as a natural wax which must settle out over a month. Shepard's recipe ignores this and cooks bugs, dirt and wax right into the black oil. No wonder Maroger's has such a bad reputation.

It's the black oil that's difficult to get a handle on. The best is made with litharge (lead monoxide) not white lead. The best litharge is laboratory grade. The most common litharge is a by-product of silver smelting...use inferior materials, get inferior black oil. As with any cooked varnish, it's best to make it in big batches in order to control the temperature. Temperature is critical. It takes a while to get the experience to produce a black oil that's clear and not turbid. It then has to be aged to allow solids to settle out before being decanted. Add a month to the time.

The best way to make the gel is to mix it fresh rather than let it stay in the tube for months after the gelling reaction (remember the chemistry). Freshly gelled medium is reactive and forms molecular bonds with the paint that old tubed gel does not. In a recent convocation of restoration chemists held in Dublin, they concluded that any problems with megilp/Maroger's stemmed from (1) being chemically inactive when mixed into the paint and (2) incorrect proportions of oil to mastic. Too much oil and it was worse than useless.

My partners and I knew about those peoblems and formulated two separate ingredients, black oil and double mastic in precise proportion so that an equal amount of each resulted in the ideal jelly -- thixotropic, slippery and permanent.

Is it dangerous? You bet. If you feed enough black oil on sandwiches to a child, they will fall ill. How much do they have to eat? According to the doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital, the average three-year old has to eat a window sill full of lead paint for it to do profound damage. Where's Mom when the kid is eating the house? Blame the lead.

For adults, you have to take in a great deal of lead for it to begin to slow you down. Before that, you'll develop a real tummyache. That's called painter's colic. How does it get into your body? The dust can be breated in or get into the eyes. It can also be ingested. If you don't wash your hands before eating, you can get some mixed with your food. Depending on how much you munch in your snacks, it should take a number of years of daily eating lead before you get that tummy ache.

Still, the only way it can be called lethal is when the lead is propelled by a goodly charge of gunpowder. As a chemical in paint, it's just not that dangerous to a careful worker. I have at least a ton of the powder in the shop and my levels of lead are lower than most.

As Leopoldo said, cadmium is more of a problem for the health. Cadmium is used to make stainless steel cooking pots. Does it jump out of the stainless and into your food? I suppose that there are sensitive machines that might be able to pick it up, but the human body seems incapable of registering the effects. Another scary thing to prevent us from painting with any degree of joy.

So, what's easier to make and has a much higher profit margin. Mastic and black oil varnishes or alkyd straight from the tank car?

As a cynical marketer, how would you sell an inferior, but highly profitable item? Obviously it would not be on the basis of it being superior in any way. We could appeal to patriotism -- mastic is harvested on an island between Turkey and Greece whereas phthalic anhydride and pentaerythritol are made right here in the good old US of A. Keep American jobs at home!

Even stronger would be the traditional appeal to save the children, just think of the young lives ruined by munching on an expensive portrait or on a Rembrandt. As they say in the Ad-Biz, the kid scare has legs. Tie that in with the fear that advertisers have developed for everything from body odor to falling arches and we have a ready-made audience that is satisfied with doing its decision making based on what they hear on Oprah or read on the internet.

With that kind of market, we can then sell a Toyota Celica for an inflated price if we simply call it a NeoFerrari. Some people will convince themselves that it drives just like a Testa Rossa, even though they have no experience with a Ferrari, let alone driven one. Yeah, NeoFerrari. I like it. We can say how we went to Modena and were inspired to turn a rice burner into a manque prancing horse. Someone will buy it!

Use inferior materials, get inferior paintings. Make decisions based on ignorance or slick ad campaigns and you deserve the fate that befalls your paintings.

Learn. Study. Experiment. Test. It's your duty as an artist.

Thank you for all the information, which we should all consider well.

Honestly, my biggest problem with traditional media is that they are typically based upon natural resins, which must be dissolved in turpentine; and although you state that turpentine is "another scary product that causes absolutely no documented harm", I have to take into account the many reports that it does, such as this, from the National Park Service, in 1997...

www.nature.nps.gov/toxic/turpenti.pdf

...in which there are short- and long-term hazards cited with regards to respiration, kidneys, cancer, and reproduction -- hazards that are by most accounts significantly greater than those posed by odorless mineral spirits and alkyd media based upon them.

Nonetheless, I promise to keep an open mind, as I digest all this additional information: I promise not to base my decisions, as to the health of my art or myself, upon faith or cynicism but rather upon the facts, preferably from controlled scientific studies.

It is indeed my duty as an artist.

Thank you for posting that PDF file.

It begins by stating the compilers are students at some local land grant university and cites the usual material common to such documents...injecting turpentine into the abdomen of a shrimp causes health problems and similar citations which rely on the reader to draw their own conclusions. Those conclusions are generally drawn from the readers basket of preferences and prejudices. Most readers who cite such things use such information in much the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post -- less for illumination than for support.

The single thing that comes out of all similar research is turpentine "will cause taste and odor problems well before reaching toxic levels." That's the canary in the coal mine that odorless mineral spirits does not have. The atmosphere of a room filled with the fumes of odorless mineral spirits can reach roxic levels without any warning to the senses.

The students erroneously state that turpentine and mineral spirits are interchangeable as solvents. Clearly, they know not whereof they speak because turpentine is a far more aggressive solvent than mineral spirits.

The students make the same mistake that uninformed artists make in assuming that turpentine is a monolithic substance rather than something separated into grades. The cosmetic/perfumery grade is very different than the grade used to make industrial solvents.

The reason that turpentine will travel through the skin barrier appears to be unknown to the student volunteers. Well known to chemists is one of the by-products of turpentine distillation is DMSO, a powerful penetrating carrier used by the leather dyeing industry. It will carry virtually any soluble substance into the skin. It is used as a linament for animals with the proviso that the area of application be completely clean because DMSO will carry whatever is on the skin to the interior.

Some DMSO (trace amounts) is found in coarsely distilled turpentine. Don't use that. It stinks. The turpentine we use to formulate Double Mastic varnish is the cosmetic grade (the USDA has passed on it as being safe). Don't forget, you can always use Oil of Spike in lieu of turpentine.

A simple test is to try to mix damar varnish with mineral spirits. It will grow cloudy and, if cooled, will precipitate like a tiny snowfall (ever wonder about those little specks of white in your paint surface...they're not dust).

As I stated before. It's all chemistry. If you wish to use alkyds, by all means do. I welcome people limiting their options and making the act of painting as difficult as possible for themselves.

The solutions to using turpentine are simple...(1) open the window, (2) don't spill any on you (if you get paint on your clothing, you might want to work on improving your accuracy with a brush). I often have to paint wearing a suit. Missing my stroke by 1/8 of an inch would be obvious. Missing the stroke by several feet and getting it on my suit is ludicrous.

Again, rather than adhering to the writing of student volunteers or manufacturer's copywriters, please make test panels and document them. After a few years you will have a much deeper understanding of what to expect from your materials. Studies injecting art materials into the abdomens of crustaceans will not bring you closer to understanding the masters.

Sir, I realize that you are a small businessman trying desperately to compete against large corporations; but I take personal offense at your referring to people like me with terms such as "prejudices", "drunkard", "uninformed", "difficult", etc. and not-so-veiled insinuations that I am basically stupid, lazy, and naive.

Like countless other artists, I am simply trying my best to sort through countless conflicting claims from a variety of sources, each claiming to be as correct as yourself, with the honest goals of producing lasting works of art and protecting my priceless health.

I cringe at thinking how many artists and their families have in actuality had their lungs, brains, kidneys, and other vital organs poisoned and have been condemned to die excruciating deaths down through the centuries as unwitting victims of their own art materials. Call me paranoid, but I want desperately to minimize my risks of becoming just another statistic.

Unable to do all the science myself -- no one can, particularly regarding the micro-chemical analyses or long-term studies required to not just say "Those test patches look good to me" -- I have to base my decisions in large measure upon the credibility of the sources I consult, which in turn is based greatly on their consistency with other reputable sources I consult.

If you are right on so many things, and so many others are wrong on those very things, then I sincerely -- sincerely -- feel for you and admire your steadfastness. Believe me (or not), I've been in that position before, on other important issues.

But you do nothing to enhance your credibility with me, or I assume others, with your insulting attitude or tirades about Mount Tinatubo (I assume you are pooh-poohing the warnings from environmentalists -- and the majority of scientitific opinion -- about Global Warming).

And for my money, the Smithsonian Institution -- including the National Portrait Gallery -- is the greatest museum on Earth.

Sir, I am far from desperate in that I never have to work another day of my life. Neither do my partners. We have all done exceptionally well in making and selling our artwork. We have attained your dream. The art materials business was never designed to produce anything more than a self-sustaining company that offered products that delighted us. I know this is difficult to understand but, the world of art has been good to us and this is one of the many ways in which we try to give back to the next generation of artists.

My references were not to you, per se, but to the human condition in which we all approach controversy armed with our preconceived notions. If you took it to imply that you do not approach everything in life with a clear and unblinkered eye, I sincerely apologize for leaving you with that impression.

I am sorry if your sensitivities were bruised. That was not my point. I did not feel offended when you cited a spurious and ill-conceived study by students at a land grant college, and I certainly did not think that you were desperately trying to make a point.

I shall of course, avoid risking treading that minefield of sensitivity in the future.

You can be sure that I was not "desperately trying to make a point."

I cited that study on turpentine simply because it reported conclusions representative of everything else I had read about the dangers of turpentine, including what I have read on the labeling of containers of artist's grade turpentine.

For the record, it was indeed a federal government study (Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Distributed within the Federal Government as an Electronic Document); and its reports of the effects of turpentine upon human health cited numerous scientific references (not simply the results of student tests on shrimp).

And at the risk of again seeming hypersensitive, as a graduate of a land-grant college, The University of California at Davis, I also take offense at any insinuation that studies done at land-grant colleges are in any way inferior. Some of the greatest research in virtually every field of learning has been, is being, and will be conducted in our historic land-grant colleges.

I do agree with you on one thing. Enough of this.

I agree with Leopoldo on the subject of lead white pigments. They do indeed produce the most durable paint films, and are largely responsible for the survival of the Old Masters' paintings over the centuries. It is always wise to take the appropriate sensible precauutions when working with ALL our paints and materials, as lead is not the only only one carrying health consequences if handled carelessly.

Regarding Maroger medium, it might be best to disregard the claims made by those who sell it, and instead consider the following points: One, a number of Jacques Maroger's own paintings are now darkened and badly cracked, which does not speak well of the mediums he advocates in his book, and, Two, it seems that the Old Masters prior to 1750 or so were able to paint as they did without Maroger medium or mastic resin in their paint, according to scientific analyses of paint samples from many of their paintings, performed by conservation scientists at the National Gallery, in London. This would indicate that Maroger medium is not essential to painting well in oils. Titian's medium, according to the NGL analyses, was walnut oil; Rembrandt's was linseed oil, and sometimes walnut oil. I experimented with Maroger medium many years ago, and can attest to the fact that it handles marvellously under the brush. However, I also found I could paint every bit as well without it, whether using alkyd mediums or just linseed and/or walnut oil with proper technique.

As for the darkening of oils over time, this is something that occurs with linseed oil in the absence of light, which effect is reversible on normal light exposure. The process can be accelerated by placing the painting in sunlight for brief periods for several days in a row. This has been documented by a number of scientific studies I can refer anyone to who doubts it, and has been corroborated by my own experiments begun in 1985.

I would discount the opinion of the seller of Maroger medium who claims to have had problems with alkyd mediums causing delamination. The first instance was when he used an experimental ground, which would have no bearing on alkyd mediums, and the other one may well have been attributable to some other error. I have used alkyd mediums, among many others, for 22 years or so, and have not had any problems with them yet. It is possible to have trouble with any medium by using it incorrectly.

I recently tried Gamblin's Neo Megilp, and like it very much. I concur with those who would like to see it dry a bit faster, but I appreciate its not drying before I've had time to develop my forms fully. I have great confidence in Gamblin's products, as I know he works closely with the top conservation scientists in developing them before he puts them on the market. I feel he and his products are unfairly maligned by a certain purveyor of Maroger medium and other products, who hosts an internet forum where he spreads his ideas. One cannot disparage science unless one has better science to report as backup.

Virgil Elliott

Are you saying that the park service and student volunteers constitute "good science?"

BTW, Virgil, Rembrandt sold paintings. By your lights, you would discount any opinions he had on the subject because, it appears that you cannot understand how one can separate commercial interests from artistic interests. In effect, what you say is very insulting an impugns my honesty. I am very hurt that you imply that I cannot be honest bcause I do not hold the current orthodox view. Perhaps I did not have the advantage of graduating from a college known for its agricultural programs and perhaps I did not attend a school for park rangers, but having attended a bona fide art school should carry some weight in a discussion about art.

Anyway, I am very insulted and feel put upon by your snide innuendo that I am a dishonest person. This affects all of my sensitivities and I feel further, that it is a slap at the school I attended and at those workers there who invented acrylics.

Additives
 

There have been many interesting points brought out here, although on a slightly different note, I have read that Rembrandt used a quartz powder and sometimes a glass powder to help create that sparkle effect that some of his paintings have. I've asked some of the better art supply stores about this and got no positive responce. Also it would be interesting to know more about the mediums used by Titian.

Rob,

My reference to science was in regard to the conservation scientists at the National Gallery in London who analyzed paint samples from Old Master paintings and found no mastic or other resins in the the paintings of Rembrandt, Titian, etc., and to the conservation scientists with whom Robert Gamblin works in the development of his products. This is in contradiction to the many claims by Jacques Maroger and the advocates of his medium that this medium was used by the painters we refer to as the Old Masters, which includes those of the 16th and 17th centuries. According to the conservation scientists, these substances are not in evidence in the preponderance of oil paintings done before about 1750, and were largely abandoned by artists in favor of hard resins in the latter decades of the 19th century due to the problems that had begun to show up in old paintings done with various megilp concoctions containing mastic resin.

My comments did not mention you, but if you took offense under the assumption that they reflected on you, I readily apologize. I might also point out, since that came up, that I am owed a long overdue apology from you for the many highly insulting and unwarranted comments you directed against me in your own forum, and in light of my not having received any such apology, I find it most ironic that you raise an objection to anything you perceive as offensive coming from me. That being said, my comments were in reference to the objectivity one might expect of a person selling a product when offering an evaluation of a competing product versus his/her own, rather than a matter of impugning your personal honesty. One can believe what he/she says whole-heartedly and still be mistaken, as is often the case. In such an instance, honesty is not the issue. I believe it is prudent in instances when a manufacturer's claims are at odds with current science to place greater credence in the best science, rather than accept on faith what someone selling a product has to say, whether the person seems honest, sincere and totally in earnest or not. You have impugned the honesty and integrity of Robert Gamblin and other manufacturers in much the same manner as you allege I have impugned yours. It might be appropriate to exhibit the same courtesies toward others as we expect others to exhibit towards us. Otherwise we have no legitimate right to complain.

This forum is intended to be for discussions of a technical nature, if I understand correctly; thus, personal issues are beside the point, and irrelevant in that context. In any case, I leave this evening for New York, and will not be able to read or respond to anything you might post until I return, unless I can find an internet cafe and more spare time than I am likely to find while there.

VE

I am certainly no apologist for Jacques Maroger and his padded-out book, but the reality is that he did not simply associate with conservators, he was one of the head consevarors at the Louvre and was honored by the French government for his seminal work on uncovering the techniques of Jan Van Eyck. As I recall, the Louvre did not have any exhibits of electric chairs, Barbie dolls or Pez dispenser. The Smithsonian does.

I don't know which "sellers of Maroger's medium" that you might have been referring to in the context of this thread. Perhaps I was wrong to take offense, especially after going into some of the science (science we proved in our labs, not in reading some park rangers compilations and not simply based on anecdotal accounts of what has happened in anyone's paintings. These are tests done with accelerated aging, actinic light generators and chemical atmospheres on test samples that have been recorded and photographed at various stages. So please, name the names of the Maroger's sellers to whom you referred if they were not me and my cohort.

If you stay up with the literature, as I do, you will be familiar with the most recent article delivered in Dublin where a number of respected researchers determined that, if megilp was mixed fresh and in a proper balance of resin, it proved to be exceptionally stable and flexible...much more so than straight oil.

What makes me shake my head is that you first cite that researchers found no signs of resin in this or that master's painting, as if to condemn the practice. While that may or may not be true, it has no bearing on the reality that the megilp/Maroger's medium greatly improves handling. A fact no one familiar with it will deny. Yet, you speak highly of alkyd medium although I'd vouchsafe not one trace of that was found in those same master's paintings.

When referring to the unnamed seller of Maroger's medium, you mentioned that he had a painting delaminate. Gee, Virgil, the same thing happened to me. You mentioned that it was due to an experimental ground. Gee, Virgil, I know that you weren't speaking about me because you are at once honest and forthright and would not deny it as you did above if it were not true, but something like that hapened to me. It was an experimental ground sent by a mid-level manufacturer, like Gamblin. It did crack. But not in the painting that delaminated. So, obviously, I was not the Maroger's seller to whom you referred as having a painting delaminate. How could I be? You denied it, and you are an honest man...and very polite in that honesty.

Rochelle, it's apparent that Rembrandt had mastered a number of mediums and used them at various stages of his paintings in order to produce specific effects. He may well have mixed powdered stone into his paint. Velaszquez most certainly did mix whiting (powdered marble) in with his lead white to produce certain effects. Contrary to what one might think, it makes the paint smoother, not chalky and dry.

As a graduate of a mere land grant agriculture and mechanics university -- if with the questionable atonement value of a subsequent degree from an expensive private law school and considerable studies thereafter in various parts of the world -- I too must be completely unqualified to sort out the vicious, pernicious, thoroughly distasteful personal attacks from the otherwise unhelpful, unconvincing, and -- as to this befuddled potential consumer -- commercially unsuccessful product claims. So I will continue to muddle along with my silly little bottles of "popular" quack oils and varnishes and my base pedigree, land-grant training, and doubtless weak character, and I'm sure The Empire will survive, even if my paintings may not. (That's fine -- the world is not sitting around waiting for my paintings and will not mourn their passing in time.)

Stroke of Genius' Portrait Artist Forum has been, with few lapses, one of the very "last best places" for honour, respect, and civility on the net, for generosity and professional but light-hearted interaction amongst people who love to draw and paint. Gunbelts and shoes and egos are checked at the door. The owner and administrator has worked tirelessly to cultivate this environment. It's a great sadness to me, as an active member with at least an emotional proprietary interest in the site, to have witnessed the importation of the nastiness and vitriol that have led so many of us to abandon other sites.

To the members who haven't been around here long enough to see these things come and go, be assured that the what you're witnessing in this thread is not characteristic of the quality of discourse and camaraderie for which SOG is well known. Don't be discouraged or put off by it. Indeed: consider well everything you "see" here -- including demeanor -- when making your own purchase and practice decisions.

To the long-time and highly esteemed members, notably Mssrs. Drenkow and Elliott, who have once again contributed informatively and civilly, thank you.

Steven

I totally agree, Steven. Do not misinterpret any of my references to graduates of land grant colleges speaking outside their areas of expertise. I have several excellent book published by the experts at U.C. Davis about turf grass management and rose grafting. Schools like U.C. Davis plays an important part in an economy that relies much more on agricultual products than on art production.

If I were to want information on international banking practices or medieval English literature, I might search elsewhere.

I don't know why you'd denigrate the education you received at a land grant college unless you wanted to study something for which they were only marginally equiped to teach. Those state schools serve a very important function, after all, not everyone can afford or get into an Ivy League school, just as not everyone would fit well in an art school. The land grant colleges were incorporated to fulfill the needs and aspirations of people, who for whatever reason, could not go to the elite schools.

Judging from the passions that seem stirred, those land grant colleges create a fierce loyalty in their alumni. That is truly wonderful and you should take joy and pride in having attended one.

On the contrary, I was responding to several needless and weightless aspersions cast upon such institutions and the work done there. I'm sorry to say, though, that I'm unfamiliar with your publications on turf management, which no doubt are indeed excellent.

In any event, just to set the record straight, Douglas Drenkow is not the drunkard on this site, I am. I'm a little depressed, too, right now, and I also have a toothache. So I'm lobbying for a lot less ad hominem and comparative C.V. filler and a little more useful information on practices and products, without the personality. Cockfights are illegal on this site. I can make up my own mind, and I've never once been convinced by an argumentative approach as opposed to sound argument -- in fact, the former usually produces an effect opposite that intended.

In any event, there's a stage leaving this thread and I'm getting on it.

Steven

All this confusion regarding mediums... why I went to the movies the other day and asked the gent at the concession for a small soda. He informed me that the smallest one they had was a medium! Well I says to him: if a medium is the smallest you have then its not a medium, it's a small. He felt pretty silly I'm sure.

Soooooo Mike, what's a nice guy like you doing in a thread like this? Did you say that there's a small medium at large in your local theatre?

:thumbsdowAfter a bunch of bad jokes I can usually depend on the audience to run, not walk, to the nearest exit :bewildere Go on to the next thread folks, this one is, or ought to be, finished...

I hope that I'm the last one here so I can lock this thing up and toss away the key.:)