*
 

*

Sharon,
I use W& N 's Permanent Crimson Lake. Hope that it's permanent.
It has the "Permanence: A" mark

Sharon,
I don't think that I need any stronger wine red. It mixes beautifully with Permanent Rose (W&N) and Ultramarine Blue to the cold side and with Cad. Red Light , Vermilion Light and Transparent Oxide Red to the warm side.

Yes, Alizarin fades away leaving a brown remembrance of what the painter tried to depict.

I've tried all sorts of similar paints, but I wasn't satisfied. Faber Castell produced one deep red in the past which gave me a very similar result, but I don't know why they stopped the production (at least in Brazil). Now I'm still looking for something, but I keep on using the same one Allan does.

I just did an online search, looking at major suppliers and haven't yet found W & N's "Permanent Crimson Lake" yet in the U.S. However, I have found "Permanent Alizarin Crimson Hue. These are different colors, correct? Any idea where to locate the former?

Alizarine colors (there's quite a range of caste and intensity from rosy to brownish) hit artist's palettes in the 1870's. An organic, synthetic pigment derived from coal tar (PR 83 - anthraquinone) it is in a class with pigments and dyes developed in the 1860's which made available the intensely brilliant red, purple, blue and orange fabrics which thrilled the eye, purportedly launching the Impressionists' "revolution" . . .

PR-83 Anthraquinone is classed by ASTM as "III" for lightfastness. Not great, but not fugitive, either. Depending on the date of the Sargent, it's possible early varieties were not as reliable as the pigment became later on.

What are we painting with? It depends on who's lying to you. Many of the colors in the range of intense deep reds are now labelled with "romantic" names rather than being identified as a specific pigment material. Labelling with "hue" in the description is not the same pigment stuff associated with the name, (e.g., "Terre Verte Hue") and nowadays the term "lake" on a color label is most probably a misnomer. In the past, "lake" colors comprised a group of mostly fugitive oil colors derived from dying clays and other inert substances with fluid dyes unavailable in dry pigment form which could be mulled in oil. The term "lake" is a corruption of "lacca", wherein seed lac was dyed to produce a pigment solid. (e.g."Madder Lake", the fugitive precursor of Alizarine Crimson, which colorant was extracted from madder root, to dye clay).

These days, there are a number of high-chroma synthetic resin pigments available such as the pyrol reds. (e.g. -Diketo Pyrole-Pyrole) They provide a wide variety of transparent reds analogous to "alizarine" ranging from very warm to very cool. Are these more permanent than Alizarine? Very likely, as this is the pigment chemistry responsible for the abundant number of red cars on the road the last 20 years. Prior to their advent, deep reds and maroons were notoriously fragile for auto finishes as well as expensive. We'll have to wait around another 130 years or so to find out for sure, though.

Oh! Yeah! You want to know what I"m using! I've been quite pleased with Robert Doak's Pyrol Ruby.

Richard,
do you say that we can not trust the word "permanence: A" from W&N? The specific tube of Permanent Crimson Lake that I'v got is a "student Quality" named "Winton Colour" but it is a W&N product saying Permanent.
The content of pigment is "Anthraquinoid, Ultramarine".

Hi Allan.

Permanence is always relative. Considerations for "what's best" are subjective to the individual painter's situation. It wouldn't do to construct a temporary job shack on a construction site out of dry-set granite blocks.

The prime criterion for "student grade" paint is low cost. The quality of all components in student grades is adjusted to be economical. Fillers and extenders are cheaper than pigment stuffs. Not all pigments of similar color cost the same, nor do they perform the same. Since reasonable folks don't expect student work to endure for posterity to "enjoy" (?!?) permanence at that tier is the last consideration. Professional painters should use the highest quality paint and materials available to them. As they have an obligation to deliver quality to their clients, they should not use student colors.

"Permanence A" is no doubt W&N's in-house system of quality standards. Where artists' oil colors are concerned, ASTM standards are subjective enough without having to deal with arbitrary standards set by individual manufacturers.

The W&N color you have, "Permanent Crimson Lake" is a convenience mix of anthraquinoid (red) and ultramarine (blue). It is not a "lake". No doubt the anthraquinoid red employed is too "hot" to approximate what most folks expect in alizarine crimson, so it's been "cooled down" with the admixture of ultramarine.

Richard,
My W&n Permanent Crimson Lake also says "Light fastness: 1"
Anthraquinonoid (PR177), Ultramarine(PB29)

Richard, what I want to know is, do you have all that data in reference materials at the ready, or is it, instead, sitting in the recesses of your brain, ready and waiting to fall off your fingers onto your computer at any moment?

Sharon, I have to confess my palette is largely earth colors, and my use of high chroma color is limited. Consequently, I may not require the same things of a "good" alizarine that you do. We'd have to compare notes in the studio for that. Doak's pyrol ruby is high quality, with a good pigment load, and tints "clean" . . . so it satisfies my minimal need for a high-chroma deep "red".

Cindy, a little of both. You'd be surprised how much info is at your fingertips printed right on paint labels!

I've substituted Winson & Newton's Permanent Alizarin Crimson. It's their Winton student grade, but the permanence rating is A.

Seems to work.

Tom, what criteria do you apply to your choices of paint?

You can also try the Pyrrolo Ruby from Studio Products:
https://store.studioproducts.com/hom...ction=0&page=2
I have a tube of this that I bought maybe... oh... five years ago when it was made by another manufacturer. I paint six days a week, use this color in nearly every painting, and I still haven't used up this tube - it is "heavily loaded", as they say.

Alan and Tom, guys! You do wonderful work. Treat yourselves to good paints!

Richard--

A little bit of everything. First quality, not student grade, except in the substitution mentioned. Nothing widely discussed as archivally suspect. I have to be able to get some more locally if I run out of a particular color--I value the efficiency--but most of the local stores keep all but the real exotics.

In other words, I don't turn it into an exact science, but I understand those who do, if they are searching for a particular result.

I was given a pretty good assortment of Vasari paints a while back and have liked them.

I haven't experimented a lot as my concerns heretofore have been mostly tonal. But I'm getting into a greater preoccupation for color so I expect the path will lead to more experimentation, as it has with other folks.

As with Allan's Permanent Crimson Lake, the Permanent Alizarin Crimson substitute has a lightfastness rating of I. I wouldn't base my palette on student grades, of course, but in the context of this one discussion, I'm satisfied with the mixtures. I'm sure there are many other good solutions.

I've been using Gamblin's "Alizarin Permanent" which they label as Lightfastness I. It's made of quinacridone red b, perylene red, and ultramarine blue.

Richard, how's that sound to you?

ASTM light-fastness ratings are a useful indicator whether a given pigment fades as it decays, so that's a good starting point. Light-fastness is not the only consideration, however. Pigment load, i.e., the amount of actual pure pigment in a given paint, proportional to the volume of inert extenders (clays, waxes, stearates, etc.) and the nature of the binding vehicle ultimately determine perfomance over the long-haul.

This isn't to say that "good paint" should have none of those additives; some pigments cannot be made into paint without them.

Having tested to my own satisfaction the common vehicle oils, (and a few uncommon ones!) I found (surprise, surprise!) that high quality linseed oil produces the toughest, most elastic clear and durable film. Walnut oil is an acceptable runner-up. Safflower oil is for all practical purposes not a drying oil at all (i.e. one which forms an irreversible polymer through oxidation) and requires the addition of siccatives to perform adequately as paint. The film it produces is weak and granular. Poppyseed oil is not much better as a film, and reverts to a "goo" in ambient heat (87F+) . Consequently, I look for paints mulled in linseed oil, and that's getting tougher since major brands like W&N have "converted" to safflower and blended oils.

Gamblin uses linseed, as do Old Holland, Williamsburg, Studio Products, Vasari and Doak to name a few. M.Graham uses walnut oil.
There's nothing wrong with mixed tube pigments (as in the W&N Perm. Crimson Lake - PR-177 & PB-29) so long as you know you're starting with two or three different pigments when you squeeze the tube. As I feel mixing more than three pigments diminishes color clarity and brilliance, I try to avoid it on the palette. (tough to do, though!)

Best substitute 4 AC
 

Hi Sharon,

I don't recall ever using the Michael Harding Magenta as a substitute for AC. Maybe you were just too distracted by my matinee idol good looks to pay close enough attention to what I was saying. At any rate, when I started using the Harding colors I tested many brands and the closest thing to his beautiful Alizarin Crimson is the Old Holland Alizarin Crimson Lake Extra. They're almost identical in both transparency and when mixed with white. I stick with Old Holland and Michael Harding exclusively for my commission work due to the fact they are both ground in cold pressed linseed oil.

Take care!

Richard--

Thanks for the heads-up on the safflower oil.

Anyone know if there's a problem with intermixing walnut- and linseed oil-based paints? I've a habit of mixing anything that's on the palette table without regard to the binding oil, and I have both in the drawer.

Hello. New member chiming in.

Old Holland's Alizarin Crimson Lake Extra is a mixed color, I'd like to point out - Pr 19, Pr 177 & PBr 23. The purest Alizarin I have is from Harding. According to him it's from coal-tar not madder root (PR 83.). Now the color codes, as many folks know, can be misleading. W&N states their Alizarin Crimson 1 Artist Oil is PR 83, but the pigment is described as 2-dihydroxyanthraquinine lake. I've nothing against synthetic pigments (even have a W&N Permanent Alizarin,) but find they tend to not tint as well as natural pigments.

http://www.oldholland.com/pages/oil/x5.html
http://www.michaelharding.co.uk/colour-info.php?cID=98
http://www.winsornewton.com/leaflets/EN/AOCEnglish.pdf

Cue words in paint labelling that indicate the pigment is a convenience mix, or otherwise adulterated are: "Hue" "Extra" and apparently "Lake" as well.

The insatiably curious among us will have to master organic chemistry in order to navigate the list of synthetic pigments . Perhaps ASTM has "upgraded" PR-83 from anthraquinone to add the "dihydroxy" prefixes? I dunno what that means to the designation which has been common since 1870, other than the "anthra" indicates that coal-tar (anthracite) is still the raw material. Claiming light-fastness of "I" indicates a change for the better.

Tom, as painting mediums entail different oils, resins and solvents, mixing paints mulled in walnut oil with those mulled in linseed is not a problem. W&N uses safflower/linseed blended oil in some of their colors. Oils of different specific gravities will ultimately separate in fluid state, this may not happen when the blend is mulled into paint, but why compromise linseed with an inferior oil?

David, Madder Root never was the raw material in Alizarine colors. At one time, "Madder Lake" meant something "real", as the colorant (dye) extracted from madder root was used to make a "lake", i.e., dye an inert solid which could be mulled into paint. There were other processes, but Rose Madder was always considered a fugitive color.

My tube of W&N Artists' oil say's Anthranquinone PR 117, Vehicle: Linseed oil. Not sure what vintage but it is the old label. I compared it with OH 's ACLE with only white (MH Flake #2) added, they were very close in hue and in tinting power and they are both quite stiff out of the tube. This as with everything with me, was very unscientific.

I wonder which oil the Maimeri was ground in? Jerry's lists the Puro line as being made with either safflower or poppy.

Peace,

That's what they say on their website too. I don't see an "alizarin," but what looks closest to me is Quinacridone (Crimson or Rose Lake,) no PR 83. There's a Antraquinone Orange Lake.

Schmincke Mussini has a PR 83, but listed as "Antrachinone" in their German PDF chart.

http://www.maimeri.it/FineArts/colorprod.asp?mnu=0101#
http://www.schmincke.de/data/content/uk/uk_index.htm

FYI, I found this site a while back that gives some concise history about different pigments.

Not to change the subject, but I still use Vasari Alizarin Crimson
 

It's an exceptionally well made handmade Alizarin and is the only brand I've experienced that actually matches the color effects of Rose Madder Genuine, an historic and very beautiful pigment. It is considered to be reasonably lightfast, and more stable and pure than any other brand over the past century. Here is the web link for Vasari Alizarin Crimson .

I have most all the alizarin replacements too, and none of them really replaces the Vasari original.

Garth

more details:
 

Hi Sharon,

Here are two pictures of my tube which will answer most questions about the Vasari product. "Highest quality purified, refined linseed oil" is the vehicle, and a lightfastness rating of "III Fair" is stated on the back of the tube. I think I was told by Steven Salek, who makes the paint, that the pigment (PR83), is madder derived, in this case. This is why it looks just like rose madder genuine. He told me some more things about how this pigment is more stable and better processed, but I have forgotten the details. It may be better to inquire at Vasari directly.

EDIT: don't necessarily trust the color here! It looks off to me on my monitor. It should look as a much deeper cool wine color.

Garth

Chemically, PR 83 is derived from anthracene, a coal-tar derivative. Possibly he meant that their choice of material in this instance "derives" from satisfying their idea of a "match" for genuine madder?

Most colorsts' offerings are "signature" and this is more true of small "boutique" makers. Vasari makes excellent paint IMO.

[QUOTE=Marvin Mattelson]
I stick with Old Holland and Michael Harding exclusively for my commission work due to the fact they are both ground in cold pressed linseed oil. QUOTE]

I am concerned about the vehicle as well. The paint manufacturers tout pure alkali refined linseed oil as a virtue, when it is the cheapest and most easily available binder available.

Since I am not know for my understated color, I think I will stick with the SP's Pryrolo Ruby for now.

Recently, halfway through a painting, my lissome ash-haired model showed up with white blond hair streaked with hot pink. the Pyrolo Ruby was up to the task. The painting, needless to say took a turn towards anime. Whatever!

I'm concerned by how difficult it is to learn exactly what kind of linseed oil we may actually be dealing with in any given situation, marketed as it is in varying qualities and types with equivocal or conflicting descriptions.

As with olive oil, the extraction process results in grades of differing "purity", with different properties. The "gold standard" is cold-pressed (extra virgin?); the seeds are simply smashed to yield free oil. The press tailings (and whole seeds) may also be tapped for the oil they contain by running them through a centrifuge-like machine called an "expeller". Adding steam heat to the process allows the extraction of still more oil. Once refined, it's a moot point whether "cold pressed" oil is actually superior for our purposes.

Cold-pressed linseed oil goes rancid unless refrigerated. In order to prevent it from going rancid, it has to be refined; waxy solids must be removed, similar to the way milk solids are removed from clarified butter. Refining either butter or linseed oil stabilizes them so they can be stored at room temperature without going rancid.

Alkali refined linseed oil is produced by spraying a dilute alkali solution on the surface of a vat of oil. As water is heavier than oil, it slowly settles to the bottom. The alkaline solution saponifies in contact with the oil, causing an ion exchange which attracts foreign matter, which is carried along with the water (which is now a soap) to the bottom. It's a complex process; in spite of the alkaline treatment, the oil retains varying degrees of acidity, which is necessary to form tough paint films during the polymerization which occurs as the oil oxidizes (dries).

The most carefully graded and refined linseed oil is used in the manufacture of printers' inks. SP uses this grade of oil in their paint.

In the "good old days" before petrochemicals eradicated linseed oil along with turpentine and natural resin varnishes from paint store shelves, Spencer-Kellogg linseed oil, cheap by the gallon at the local farm Co-op store met all reasonable standards for use in oil painting. So far, the stuff currently available to me (Startex) appears to be OK, but each new lot I buy will require testing, as the quality of all painting materials (regardless of their source) has become a moving target.

Richard,

Thank-you for taking the time to 'clarify' a confusing point about paint vehicles.

I am using the SP Optical white as well as the Pyrolo Ruby.

The Optical White is a revelation, it keeps colors brilliant and they do not seem to 'sink in'. The Pyrolo Ruby is exquisite and as I love brilliant pinks, it has been an extremely useful substitute for Alizarin.

This is off the topic somewhat, but the texture of SP's paint especially the whites are tailor-made for painting skin. They blend so beautifully even when you don't try to blend them. The consistency is perfect.

With all due respect, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss cold pressed linseed oil. I have never experienced any tube of Old Holland or Michael Harding turning rancid. Cold pressed linseed oil makes the most flexible and durable paint film and was used by the old masters. The old Holland cp linseed oil is pressed by stone using a windmill and is the most expensive process in it's manufacture. Cold pressed is also the most stable with regards to color stability of dried paint. It is considered to have superior wetting power when it comes to grinding.

Alkali refined linseed oil was developed in the 19th Century. In many cases paintings painted in the last 150 years show much more evidence of deterioration, discoloration, darkening and cracking as compared to 17th Century paintings which were created using lead primer, lead white, earth based pigments and cold pressed linseed oil. Today, through the use of the most sophisticated scientific instrumentation, conservation scientists have found no evidence that the old masters used anything other than cold pressed oil. Modern doesn't necessarily mean better.

Since the 18th Century artists and color-men have been trying to improve upon something that was integral and pure to begin with, looking to find an easy answer to the successes of the old masters. The real answer is that the masters knew how to paint. Historically, "discoveries" of magic painting mediums and such have resulted in too often disastrous consequences, sometimes not evidenced for 100 years. This was the case regarding the 18th century medium, Megilip, the precursor of Maroger medium. In my opinion using Maroger, alkyd resins, natural resins or varnishes in or as painting mediums is highly questionable. Many fine artists choose to ignore the lack of historical viability regarding these substances and produce fine works. I, for one, don't trust that these things provide archival stability and choose to remain a purist. I don't experience any lacking in my ability to make the paint do my bidding.

All manufacturers have numbers, explanations and statistics which seemingly prove the superiority of their modern ingredients. I take their claims and reassurances with a very large grain of salt. The bottom line is, they want your money! I don't believe that the integrity of their products is first and foremost in their hearts, regardless of their claims to the contrary. Refined linseed oil is much cheaper to use in the manufacture of paints. I say let the buyer beware.

Personally, the fact that a particular refined linseed oil is used in the finest printing inks is far from a valid reason to trust it's viability as a superior vehicle. The printing industry, in my experience, is not too concerned with longevity.

I would never so much as consider using any paint not ground in cold pressed oil in the creation of my artwork. I have an obligation to my clients which I don't take lightly. Refined is okay for student use but not when it comes to serious painting.

Regarding a viable alternative for the less-than-permanent Alizarin Crimson, I would rather use a mixture of permanent pigments. below is a painting I created using the Old Holland Alizarin Crimson Lake Extra. I think it turned out just fine.

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.