Rembrandt's Sparkle effect
 

There is a book written by Ernest Van Wetering called "Rembrandt, The Painter at Work" by Amsterdam University Press. It says among many things that the sparkle effect that is seen in some of Rembrandt's paintings is partially due to the use of quartz powder and glass powder which was actually found in the layers of paint. Although, finding quartz powder for sale anywhere is probably as challenging as finding it in a Rembrandt.

If you added things like quartz powder, ground glass or any type of glittery material to your painting, wouldn't it then be a mixed media painting instead of an oil painting? At what point do we consider something a painting or just arts and crafts? Maybe if no one could tell what secret ingredient was used? Would contemporary peers consider that cheating? If such a paint product was possible, wouldn't Gamblin or some other paint wizard have done it? Or maybe we should use diamond dust! What an expensive painting that would be! I'd better watch out or Steven will patent it!

I'd be willing to try it if I could find the stuff. It is not an easy thing for me to grind up quartz. Looking at the Pearl catalogue in the section for mediums there is a pebeo crystal mortar that is made for acrylics. It is described as: acrylic, quartz and glass based thick mortar. Obtains granular and transparant effects. Since according, at least, to the above mentioned book there is scientific evidence of this practice by the big "R" himself, I'm curious; although it seems that for the most part this information is not widely known.

Also, I'm willing to try diamond dust, as well as 14 karat gold powder, possibly gold leaf. Hopefully nothing that will attract flies or melt on a warm day.

Rochelle,
I once did a painting for a friend of a lady walking out of the ocean with a long flowing scarf-like dress. I wanted it to shimmer so I went shopping....found some real fine glittery stuff in a jar....almost like dust...they sell it at most art or craft stores. I added some to a clear painting medium and painted it over the dress. Wow, it worked great! Now, I probably wouldn't do that on a regular basis unless I was painting fairy's or something, but it sure was fun!

Hi Marta,
I don't think it is bad or, more formally speaking, unethical to enhance an oil painting with modern additives to the paint unless you are claiming to use only what the "Old Masters" used and show historical and scientific evidence of the materials used. SOG artists are not bound to these standards although they are driven by their creativity to produce the most beautiful and high quality piece of art possible. They also have an obligation to please their clients.
Having stared in awe at Rembrandt's paintings and wondered how was it possible for him to create that look, it was interesting to make the quartz discovery.
When working on a commission, I discuss the materials I use with my client and provide a list of the paints, mediums, varnish and everything else. They find this information very interesting and important for future restoration and care. It is nice to say that only "time tested" materials were used.
By the way, do you remember the name of the "real fine glittery stuff in a jar"?

Adding quartz to paint
 

Well Marta why do you say this? After all what is oil paint? Oil ether linseed or almond oil added to a pigment.

What are these pigments? Well some are ground oxides of metals like titanium, lead and chromium. Or cadmium is a chemical element which is found in zinc, copper, and lead (reason cadmium colors often contain a warning of lead content).

Some are just earth iron-rich for Ochre and Sienna or iron and manganese for Umber
Others like alizarin come from crystalline compounds of coal tar, or it

Michael,
I guess I was really asking opinions more than making a statement about additives and what constitutes "mixed media." I have noticed at several local art fairs and judgings that they are very particular about what you are using so they can classify you correctly. It seems that if you use anything but oil they want you to be "mixed media." Of course I wouldn't be telling them about any ingredients or mediums that I use, but the sparkly stuff is clearly not oil paint to them. I once had a painting that had this stuff on it moved from the "oil painting" section to the "craft" section of a show, so I don't use it anymore. Of course, that is local art stuff, a far cry from the caliber of artists in here. I guess I just thought that if the local yahoo's didn't consider it an oil painting, the professional's in here might really think it was tacky! The points you bring up are very relevant. You never know until you ask.

Rochelle,
I found the glittery stuff in the glitter section of our local Art and Craft store. I don't remember the brand name.

Merck manufactured pearlescent pastels sold by Sennelier and Guache watercolors sold by Schmincke. I was provided samples of these a number of years ago and found them attractive but not otherwise useful to the kind of work that I like to produce. They might be good for special effects. I used them for vinyl flooring patterns and they are now every where including your tooth paste.

Most of the metallic and pearlescent pigments in the marketplace today are made from a form of the mineral mica or produced from an extrusion process. They were first made prominent by automobile manufacturers to achieve metallic effects without using unstable and environmentaly unsafe metals. They also provide irredescent colors that will make colors look different as the light and direction you abserve them changes.

I could not find names of others that I know provide these "pigments" in dry form but do recall that Engelhard Corp is among those and you can get info from Sunny Maffeo, 732-205-7365.

Pearlescent paints
 

Jim,

Your post made me think (or maybe it is that it is morning and my head is clearer) pearlescent paint is a great idea for this. And used very sparingly cold offer some very attractive uses.

Like painting highlights on silver, a mother of pearl comb in or a string of pearls. But, I would only use it for highlight effects since it would look strange and garish if you tried to use to much Also since when you paint it is a representation of a 3D object in 2D you would get highlights and reflection in areas you do not want them if you say tried to paint pearls completely using pearlescent paint.

I myself would first learn to get as close to producing these effects using only color first before I tried any thing that might be regarded as mimicry.

Thanks Jim, Micheal and Marta for coming up with some very interesting points. I just found a company on the web called Reade Advanced Materials. They offer diamond and gold dust as well as platinum, quartz, titanium oxide/dioxide and many other powders. I wonder if it would be safe to use these industrial powders as paint pigments. Can you imagine? Flake white step aside, platinum is here.

P.S. try this address: www.reade.com/home_index.html

Michael,
I think what you're saying is that you would like to use the pearlescent paint for highlights for a 3-d effect.
When I look at the highlights on a Rembrandt it apears that there is a thin dark outline around the highlights. This shows up in reproductions although I can't tell if the dark is a glaze or a shadow of the raised impasto. In the book "Rembrandt -the painter at work", which is what got me started on all this, it is mentioned that quartz was found in the under painting as well as the highlights. This, it is said, is the reason that the entire painting has the "glow". Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me as I write. I also agree that It won't do much to make a bad painting better.

I thought this was interesting information on Gamblin Metalic Paints from their web site:

GAMBLIN ARTISTS COLORS
ARTIST GRADE METALS

Rich Gold: Made from real metal powder and an alkyd resin binder. Rich Gold is rose gold. Use it in place of gold leaf, painted over Venetian Red. Excellent for painting frames. Can be mixed with transparent oil colors or thinned out and used for a sparkling glaze. Thin with a combination of Galkyds and OMS. Do not thin with turpentine.

Pigment: Bronze powder(PM 2)
Vehicle: Oil Modified Alkyd Resin
Lightfastness I Series 4
OPAQUE

Pale Gold: Made from real metal powder and an alkyd resin binder. Pale Gold is green gold. To use it in place of gold leaf, paint over Olive Green. Excellent for painting frames. Can be mixed with transparent oil colors or thinned out and used for a sparkling glaze. Thin with a combination of Galkyds and OMS. Do not thin with turpentine.

Pigment: Bronze powder(PM 2)
Vehicle: Oil Modified Alkyd Resin
Lightfastness I Series 4
OPAQUE

Copper: Made from real metal powder and an alkyd resin binder. Copper looks like crushed pennies. Excellent for painting frames. Can be mixed with transparent oil colors or thinned out and used for a sparkling glaze. Thin with a combination of Galkyds and OMS. Do not thin with turpentine.

Pigment: Copper powder(PM 2)
Vehicle: Oil Modified Alkyd Resin
Lightfastness I Series 4
OPAQUE

Silver: Made from real metal pigment and an alkyd resin binder. Excellent for painting frames. Can be mixed with transparent oil colors or thinned out and used for a sparkling glaze. Extend with Galkyds. Thin with a combination of Galkyds and OMS. Do not thin with turpentine.

Pigment: Aluminum powder(PM 1)
Vehicle: Oil Modified Alkyd Resin
Lightfastness I Series 4
OPAQUE

When I was sixteen, I painted a portrait of an old shepherd-like man with a rough burlap-like shirt. I put cheese-cloth on the wet paint, and painted over it to create fabric like consistency. I sold the painting for enough money to put half down on my first car! (hee-hee, it was a '56 Buick). I guess I could attach it. The image was out of my head - the hands were those of my paternal grandfather. This was scanned from a very poor polaroid shot.

(Maybe this is me in a couple of years!)

Utrecht has marble dust (Item No: 36869) for sale online at: http://www.utrechtart.com/

I'm going to try it and will post results.

As far as adding "shiny" things to paint, it isn't necessary. Objects will look more convincing if you learn to paint in plain old oils....

Sorry I don't have a closeup of the sleeve on this Frans Hals painting...it is full of shiny gold.

And here are some shiny gold objects...it is not what you use to paint them, but how you paint them that makes them look convincing.

Karin,

The Hals painting has something gold/metallic in the sleeve or is painted to look like gold?

It is painted to look like gold and actually (to my eye at least) looks better than the real stuff - i.e., the "shine" and "sparkle" is idealized by the artist.

To paint a shiny object convincingly, the contrast between light and shadow is often dramatic.

In Medieval times, gold leaf was applied to a lot of Icons. It does not fool the eye in that it looks as if it is part of the painting...it just looks like gold leaf added onto the surface as a decoration.

What I mean to say is that although applied shiny gold leaf is beautiful, it is not part of the "illusion" of the painted surface.

The detail alone can dazzle on this painting and I for one love to paint shiney gold in plain old oils. Why you seem to be ignoring the Rembrandt factor is beyond me Karin. In blazing saddles you are going to rush ahead into dangerous territory using the notoriously toxic marble powder. Pardon me for scolding but, why not just stick with what you've got going so far?

Lon, your painting technique in the above example seems to have the Rembrandt feel with the dramatic contrast and dark background. I have to mention that there is something extra in a Rembrandt. Yes, of course, his skill and technique in painting shiney objects was exceptional, surpassing anyone else.
Also, it has been suggested by many (none of our group that I recall) that anyone wishing to pursue the specialty of oil portraiture must study Rembrandt. Many of his later portraits are as complicated as calculus, even the ones that look simple.
But like it or not his paintings glow, and jump out at the veiwer. Some more than others.
It's more than technique. You probably have to see it in real life to know what I mean.

I really do not know what you mean by "the Rembrandt factor." If you are saying that he added something shiny to his paint to make the light "glow," I disagree. He used ordinary "home made" lead white paint as did most artists of his time and place....he just knew how to use the paint that he had better than most.

I disagree, the combination of technique, talent and skill is exactly what makes Rembrandt's work outstanding. I too have spent many hours in front of many of his paintings and the paint has no "special sparkle," it is his use of the paint that makes the "sparkle."

Blazing Saddles? I found some marble powder at Utrecht in NYC this past weekend and can't resist trying it. Breathing it is the danger and I do not intend to breathe it.

Hmmmmmmmm. To begin with, it is in my nature to experiment...every time I pick up a brush I try something new.

Also, it is my understanding that marble powder when added to paint does not alter the color in any way. It does, however, alter the way the paint handles and I am curious about that.

I love to build light thickly (Rembrandt did too) and I have added various things to my paint to make this handling of light better for me. I have tried Oleopasto and Dorland's wax medium to mention a couple of recent experiments. I did not like the effect. Marble dust is something else to try and I really like to play around with paint.

If I were ever going to experiment with mica, pearlescent paints or shiny stuff in a painting, I would use them where they did not show....i.e., in the bottom layer. Maybe they would enhance the bounce of light through the layers....but I think maybe not. In any event I have no plans to try to add shiny stuff to my paint.

One other thing....I really do not think that it is necessary to seriously study Rembrandt if you wish to learn portraiture. Rembrandt is definitely in a category by himself. It is also much easier to study and apply the valuable lessons taught by many other great painters (such as Vermeer).

I would agree with Karin for the most part and could think of a number of things that I would warn against putting up your nose before I worried about marble dust. I would also say that upon the next opportunity to see a Rembrandt in the real I will look more closely for the physical characteristics you describe. I guess I have always been smitten by the extraodinary ability by so many artists that I admire to conceive, execute, provoke, and excite the viewer so well that even poor reproductions fail to diminish that appreciation as they make me feel humble and at the same moment give me the incentive to do better. I don't think I would appreciate the Hals painting anymore if it had real gold or good imitation.

Seeing the real works is always better and the connection with the artist is moving as you can better see his/her "hand" in the effort.

Having said this, I must say that I have no axe to grind regarding new materials and may try some of the pearl materials. They are not "shiny" but rather produce a lustre much like you would see in a natural pearl. I would also guess that they might be best used as a palette of colors rather than a contrivance for special effects.

There's no doubt Rembrandt was one of a kind and his technique unsurpassable. I also believe that this technique, in comparison with Vermeer's, is very impractical.

I find it relevent that the book and evidence of glass and quartz powder mentioned in the beginning and other parts of the thread seem to be invisible. If it is possible to use marble powder with excellent results I may consider using it myself.

I thank you for your posts. I'm pleased with the interest this topic has recieved and continue to invite the opinions of anyone else who would care to post. :)

How do I unsubscribe from a thread
 

I think we have discussed this topic to tedium. I thought it might be interesting to experiment. And although I don

I really do not understand what you are saying here...could you elaborate?

This topic does seem to be getting exhausted. There is an organisation called the Rembrandt Research Project. This is one of their sites: http://park.org/pavilions/culture/rembrandt
These people are very serious and the info offered here might be useful reading for anyone who is really interested in this. Enjoy!

The link you gave us doesn't go anywhere so maybe you could just give a simple explanation as to what you meant by your reference to "invisible"?

Heck, I took the time to answer your question....are we talking a right-wing conspiracy to suppress information? Or are you saying that some substance Rembrandt added to paint can't be seen?

Karin,

Sorry the link didn't go through. Instead you might type in Rembrandt Research Project and see where you get. I'm not an expert but these people are. And, Yes to your last question!

Is this is the correct link? http://park.org/Netherlands/pavilion...ure/rembrandt/

Cynthia,

The link is correct but it is going to take some time to find the specific reference to this subject. I skimmed through the "invisible" stuff and found mostly discussion regarding the methods to varify Rembrandt paintings.

All,

If someone has more patience and success, post the key links that address this special effect.

On Marble Dust...
 

Marble dust is also an age old additive in oil painting. The difference from what I have seen here however, is that most added the marble dust to their oil ground, not in the oil paint layers. That said, Karin if you decide to try some added to your whites, then be aware that it will add a body to the paint, but use it sparingly as it is very absorbent and too much will likely cause brittleness and cracks down the road. And depending on how fine it is ground, the same should go for the quartz powder.

I use a gesso that has marble dust added to it. It is like painting on hydrastone. You can build up impasto effects with it at the charcoal stage and have no fear of cracks down the road. You can sand it, carve it....works great for me.

As for the book mentioned on Rembrandt. I have it and it is a really great book. It wouldn't surprise me if he did add quartz powder, like any painter, he seemed to experiment a lot. But the point is, he certainly didn't need it. I agree with Karin that proper rendering in plain'ol oil paint is sufficient.

Michael:

Still haven't gotten around to trying the marble dust. Do you have any suggestions as to how much to add....30% maybe?

I'm looking to build up a thick impasto...

Rochelle:

Please HELP us out here...I wish to find the important "Rembrandt" reference that you have referred to where he added stuff to his paint. There is sooooo much on the reference site that you gave us that it could take me days/weeks to find it with my 56K dial up modem...if it really is there that you found the information.

Karin:

To my gesso, I use a golden mean ratio - 1 part marble dust to 1.6 parts gesso.

If you were to use it in actual paints, then I think that following the generally accepted 20/80 ratio that is used for mediums - 20% marble dust to 80% paint might work out ok. I know you already know to try it on a test panel first.

Many of the thick impasto effects we see in old master works, I believe, were likely built up over repeated applications during a number of months. If you just apply an impasto layer directly and it is thick, then you risk cracking as the top layer will dry while the underside will take several months if not a year or more to dry. When it does, and over time, it will contract - at a different rate than the top layer - and it is almost inevitable that cracks will result.

Now, the addition of a dryer such as liquin to this mix might help mitigate the risk of cracks as the layers will dry faster, but I still would be tempted to apply several times to ensure that things below were dry - my opinion.

Hope that helps. :)

Cynthia,
You've saved the day again!

Karin and others,
It may be worth the while to have the book by Ernest Van Wetering "Rembrandt the Painter at Work", which was mentioned at the beginning of this thread. It used to be $80 but now they can be found used for $21 on Amazon. There will be clear pictures and documentation of the added quartz and glass and all of their findings. I have ordered another book called "Rembrandt the Master in his Workshop" which is out of print and available used.

Michael,
Do you know how fine these powders should be and do you know anything about other types of powders? It would be very helpful to know this.

Thanks all, Rochelle

Sorry Rochelle, I don't really know about how fine the powders need to be. My experience with the marble dust is that it creates a very absorbent ground - thereby I can extrapolate that most such powders will cause a certain amount of oil absorbtion. It sound like a great experiment to me, so if you have a chance to do it, please let the rest of us know what you find.

Hey, you don't suppose that they ground the powdered pigments in a quartz mortar and pestle do you? Could that be the source of the quartz in the paint? Also, how about the muller he used? Was it stone or glass? Could it be the source of the minerals in the paint? We may never know for sure....

All of this posting has been very time consuming. I have hardly time to wash the dishes and I still have to photograph and frame my latest portrait for a man who wanted a painting of his deceased wife. There is a local high quality photo lab who will put this on a jpeg for me. Maybe I will be able to get it onto the portrait critiques. Perhaps you will even like it. Sigh.

By the way Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms!
I'm getting my mom the latest Celine Dion CD. :sunnysmil

Michael you are a fast poster. Anyway it may be of interest to see this page: www.jcsparks.com/painted/pigment_print.html if I got it right that is.

Rochelle:

Thanks for the link! I printed it, bound it, and added it to my library under P for pigments. :)