A No-lead Maroger medium?

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

[Douglas Drenkow]

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.

[Douglas Drenkow]

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.

[Douglas Drenkow]

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 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.

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.

[Douglas Drenkow]

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.

[Virgil Elliott]

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

One cannot disparage science unless one has better science to report as backup.

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.