Removing varnish
 

What would be the process, and the risks, of removing Damar varnish from a finished painting?

Not much risk if you adhered to the drying principles of your painting before you varnished! It is a painstaking, tedious and miserable job, but it can be done. I wouldn't have worried about it until a 3" gash was ripped into the linen of a painting, similar to a replay from the movie "The War of the Roses" in my second marriage!

Otherwise, if I was so lucky, I would wait until I am dead for some conservator two centuries from now in some museum to see the genius in my work to want to go to the trouble. Mike, why the concern?

L

Let me ask the question a little differently. What if you needed [wanted] to make modifications to a painting that had already been varnished. Wouldn't you have to remove the varnish?

Mike,

The proper method is to remove the entire varnish from the painting. Removing a small area to paint back into will work, but the trick is varnishing that area so it will feather back into the old varnish; it never looks right. Varnishing properly with Damar is a lot tricker than one would think. I have messed up paintings that looked like a glazed donut afterwards!

You work a small area at a time, dipping your cotton swab into turpentine, soaking that small surface area, rubbing very gently, squeazing the cotton dry, resoaking and repeat until the swab is too saturated with Damar, where you will then pick up another clean swab, and continue the process over the whole surface area. Slow work, bad fumes, but it can be done.

L

I know this look; I have done this. There is much risk in this final step. What is your preferred method of final varnish?

Thanks for the help, Leo.

Miguel,

You can either buy ready-made Damar varnish or make your own, which is considerable cheaper! I prefer to buy the Damar crystals, which are inexpensive at any art store. They dilute readily with turpentine almost overnight, and much faster if you crush the crystals. By weight, dilute equally. Now you have a varnish that is thick, but has impurities in it: let sit for a couple of weeks or longer, so the nasty stuff settles to the bottom. Decant the clear varnish off and discard the gunk! Now you have something to work with. This needs to be diluted further with turpentine. I personally do not like the beautiful shiny surface that Damar creates because of the glare that it produces to the viewer. I add beeswax, pastilles unbleached, which again can be procured at any art store. It produces a wonderful matte finish that unifies the sunken areas in your painting as well as reduces the glare to the viewer. For this recipe, I take the original varnish of 4 parts Damar, 1 part wax and 2 parts turpentine, which needs to be heated over a low heat to combine all of the ingredients, especially essential in wax. Best to do outside, if one has any apprehensions about fumes or combustibility. Store in jars until ready to use.

Now you are ready to varnish in whatever drying time frame of your painting you adhere too. Lay painting flat in a dust free area. Again, heat the wax/Damar varnish over a low heat. Important to apply heated! Get yourself a very good varnish brush. Escoda makes a wonderful ox hair brush, but whatever your choice, make sure it is top quality! Nothing is more frustrating than a poor, uneven application of varnish, and even worst yet, hairs being deposited on your work! Again a heated Damar/wax is essential! Load sparingly and work fast over small areas before progressing to the next area. Have good lighting and angle your view so you can easily see the glare in the areas you have missed so that you can attain to them quickly before moving on. If you have to go back to semi- or dried areas of varnish you are usually in trouble. This is where a painting that is varnished improperly will overlap itself over semi-dry/dry areas. You don

Muchas gracias, Leo.

You go to all that trouble and then your future ex-wife puts her fist through it. It just doesn't seem right.

M,

No blame, it always takes two to tango and I must have been stepping on her toes while she was looking for a better tango!

L

Why bother,
 

Why use a varnish that is so problematic to remove, jeopardizing the underlying paint layers, not to mention exposure to a highly toxic thinner turpentine. Damar varnish is about as relevant as outdoor plumbing these days.

Gamblin makes a varnish called Gamvar (gaining high praise from conservators world wide) which can be more easily removed using much less toxic Gamsol (mineral spirits.)

The great traditions of Western Art are certainly worthy of being sustained. The use of Damar varnish isn't one of them!

Well Marvy!

Did you even read the initial post by Mike, before jumping in with your Gamblin propaganda.

I haven't posted much on this forum, but have paid visits almost daily and one thing I have observed is your constant reminder to folks here how Gamblin products are going to save the day, like the TV Superman in the 50's! Others, as well as myself, have come to the conclusion, you either work for them or have a dreadful fear of your art materials. Gamsol, Damvar, etc., what kind of advetising gimmick names are these? I am sure they are more of these names on the horizon all starting with Gam, or something or another that you can even use as lotion after using toxic oil paint! Sounds like they are copying by using derivatives from the names of the real stuff! Believe me, they are just as toxic if you are foolish enough to substitute them for the topping on your cesear salad.

Gary Hoff, a physician said it all to well in another section of the other Forum.

Thanks, Marvin, for the reminder that there are new and useful products being developed by dedicated and conscientious manufacturers. I'm not all that concerned or bothered, frankly, by the toxicity of various materials in significant concentrations, because I take reasonable safeguards (I wipe my hands off on my jeans before I open the Dos Equis and plunge my hand into the bag of Fritos.) But I'm always interested in folks' experience with new products, especially when the recipes and procedures surrounding use of the traditional materials seem so fraught with opportunities for mishap and disappointment.

Cheers,
Steven

The high road
 

Leopoldo,

Only my closest friends are allowed to call me "Marvy." I'd prefer you refer to me as: "Marvelous Marvin."

First of all, I do not now nor have I ever been employed by Gamblin to dispense propaganda, sell art materials or recommend any of their products. I do, however, purchase them and am very happy with the results I have achieved through their use. But if Robert Gamblin is reading this I would be very happy to take his money and become a most sincere endorser of his wonderful products.

If you had bothered to read my reply to Gary Hoff's comments, wherein I stated my opinion concerning the deficiencies of scientific expertise in evaluating the toxicity of a multitude of art and non-art related products, perhaps you would not have been so inclined to attack me. Or do you only read that which seems to back up your point of view, an all too common technique used in scientific research? Had you continued reading the string you would have observed in an admirable and gentlemanly gesture, Dr. Hoff agreed to our right to disagree.

I still stand by my credo that one must employ common sense in making one's choices. So can you please tell me how a substance such as turpentine which can be absorbed through the skin, has fumes that make people dizzy (and worse) and evaporates into the air more quickly than any other solvent, could possibly be nontoxic?

If you bothered to do research on Gamblin products, you might have discovered they do extensive testing and back it up with documentation. Virgil Elliot a highly regarded expert on artists materials (and a great artist), has endorsed and recommended Gamblin products many times in these forum pages. Coincidentally he was the target of a personal attack.

I feel a strong responsibility as an artist, who has spent many years trying to avoid the incredibly well documented toxic onslaught of modern civilization, to unselfishly share my knowledge and perhaps open the eyes of others who may have not considered these issues. I am a very passionate person and I enthusiastically share that which I feel has great merit. Conversely, I will turn on a dime and abandon anything that I discover to be problematic. I don't recommend anything based on hyperbole, loyalty or rhetoric, only on results. Any inferences to ulterior motives on my part, are purely fictitious.

I for one, have come to appreciate the spirit of artistic brotherhood that underlines the dialogues of the Forum. Whether we agree or disagree is beside the point.

Steven,

Thank you.