Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

Steven Sweeney · 10-15-2002, 08:32 PM

ReNae,

Questions about permanence (other search terms include "fugitive color" and "lightfastness") have been getting increasingly rigorous attention, not unlike questions about, say, toxicity, or discoloration caused by varnishes and various oils and mediums. It's just a sign of the times, that more qualified people are asking searching questions about the quality of the products they're using.

There are many painters who have gone to the trouble to conduct sometimes years'-long tests of various pigments, usually under accelerated aging processes (such as placing samples in long term full-sun exposure). Traditional sap green and alizarin pigments have reportedly done extremely poorly, some accounts indicating substantial fading in only 2 to 4 years. In similar conditions, many of the new "permanent" offerings do extremely well, with little or no degradation. Virgil Elliot, who brooks no inferior materials, has written that he's very impressed with Gamblin's permanent alizarin, which he says looks and behaves very similarly to traditional alizarin.

The overwhelming weight of advisories that I've seen are to take lightfastness ratings very seriously if you care at all about what your paintings will look like in 10 or 20, not to mention 50 or more, years. I now find myself always checking for a Type I or A rating, and if I accept a Type II or AA (or B), there has to be a pretty good reason. Under no circumstances would I purchase paints with ratings less than that.

So why are the fugitive pigments still on the market, and apparently selling well? Probably because of a lack of informed decision-making by those paying the price twice, once at the check-out counter and again, unwittingly, as the pigments degrade over time. I received some pretty reasonable training, and I try to pay attention most of the time, and I was never cautioned about the problem of fugitive pigments. To compound the problem, even if you're trying to be responsible about the matter, there's no uniformity amongst the manufacturers' rating systems. Some use Arabic numbers, some Roman. Some use A's and B's, some single A's and multiple, some "plus signs" [+]. Are two plus signs better than three, or worse? Two A's better or worse than three? It can be hard to find out, and only a search through the manufacturer's literature will tell you. No wonder the tide is slow to change. (Maybe a most-to-least bar would be a useful standard, with a mark to indicate the quality of the pigment you're holding. If they can do it with salsa, why not paint?)

All of which is why I will pursue the issue with Daniel Greene and try to get his thoughts on it.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest that both you and I get into the permanent sap greens and the permanent alizarins offered by various manufacturers and start mixing them up and seeing if there isn't something in there with which we can proceed happily and confidently.

10-15-2002, 08:32 PM	#23
Steven Sweeney Juried Member PT 5+ years Joined: Nov 2001 Location: Stillwater, MN Posts: 1,801	ReNae, Questions about permanence (other search terms include "fugitive color" and "lightfastness") have been getting increasingly rigorous attention, not unlike questions about, say, toxicity, or discoloration caused by varnishes and various oils and mediums. It's just a sign of the times, that more qualified people are asking searching questions about the quality of the products they're using. There are many painters who have gone to the trouble to conduct sometimes years'-long tests of various pigments, usually under accelerated aging processes (such as placing samples in long term full-sun exposure). Traditional sap green and alizarin pigments have reportedly done extremely poorly, some accounts indicating substantial fading in only 2 to 4 years. In similar conditions, many of the new "permanent" offerings do extremely well, with little or no degradation. Virgil Elliot, who brooks no inferior materials, has written that he's very impressed with Gamblin's permanent alizarin, which he says looks and behaves very similarly to traditional alizarin. The overwhelming weight of advisories that I've seen are to take lightfastness ratings very seriously if you care at all about what your paintings will look like in 10 or 20, not to mention 50 or more, years. I now find myself always checking for a Type I or A rating, and if I accept a Type II or AA (or B), there has to be a pretty good reason. Under no circumstances would I purchase paints with ratings less than that. So why are the fugitive pigments still on the market, and apparently selling well? Probably because of a lack of informed decision-making by those paying the price twice, once at the check-out counter and again, unwittingly, as the pigments degrade over time. I received some pretty reasonable training, and I try to pay attention most of the time, and I was never cautioned about the problem of fugitive pigments. To compound the problem, even if you're trying to be responsible about the matter, there's no uniformity amongst the manufacturers' rating systems. Some use Arabic numbers, some Roman. Some use A's and B's, some single A's and multiple, some "plus signs" [+]. Are two plus signs better than three, or worse? Two A's better or worse than three? It can be hard to find out, and only a search through the manufacturer's literature will tell you. No wonder the tide is slow to change. (Maybe a most-to-least bar would be a useful standard, with a mark to indicate the quality of the pigment you're holding. If they can do it with salsa, why not paint?) All of which is why I will pursue the issue with Daniel Greene and try to get his thoughts on it. Meanwhile, I'd suggest that both you and I get into the permanent sap greens and the permanent alizarins offered by various manufacturers and start mixing them up and seeing if there isn't something in there with which we can proceed happily and confidently. __________________ Steven Sweeney [email protected] "You must be present to win."