BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Art supplies dictating style

  
 
Ethan Hawke
14:33 / 24.05.02
There's a neat interview in the Atlantic with a chap who has written a book about the manufacture and use of color pigments in painting. The argument that available materials have plenty to do with the art of a time period is nothing new; (The Fauves and tube color, etc.) however, it got me thinking about the materials I use to do my paintings. Will better (more expensive?) materials give me more options?

A couple of examples:

I've been working a lot from photos recently - my method (let me say [with a mix of pride and embarrassment] that I am entirely self-taught) is to take a Lomo snapshot that I've shot (usually of a person), scan it, blow it up digitally, trace it onto tracing paper, and then transfer it to canvas with artists's carbon paper. Then I trace that transfer with India ink. The actual painting consists of a series of near transparent glazings. I like the results I've come out with so far, but I'm limited by how much I can blow up the drawing and still deal with it managably. It's also a time-consuming project. So, I want a projector. they're pretty expensive (150-250 dollars), well out of my range right now unless I decide to go on an art supply bender. But I wonder if my work will be affected by working with the new method. I recently saw the Gerhard Richter retrospective at the MoMA (for which I have notes for a scathing review I keep meaning to write for my blog) and Henry Darger at the American Folk Art Museum, both of whom used tracing techniques in their work. Richter uses a projector, and Darger used a tracing process similar to the one describe above (sans glazes). The results couldn't be more different, in terms of characteristics of line work etc. Obviously one of the two was highly trained...but...

Another Example - I've been looking at a lot of Glenn Brown's work lately. I like it, and not just because of his stolen spacecraft. I more enjoy the portraits he paints "after" another work. The trick is, if you look at a reproduction of Brown's work, you'd think it was highly textured. However, in real life, his paintings are very smooth. I really, really want to know the exact way he works, what materials he uses, mediums, brushes etc. But that doesn't seem to be interesting to any art critics out there. It's like, I wish there was the painting equivalent of "Guitar" magazine where painters list their tools of choice and stuff. I have a painting gear fetish. And I want to know how people do what they do, as it's usually simpler than you'd think.
 
 
Saveloy
15:01 / 24.05.02
"I wish there was the painting equivalent of "Guitar" magazine where painters list their tools of choice and stuff. I have a painting gear fetish. And I want to know how people do what they do, as it's usually simpler than you'd think."

F*** yes! There are plenty of 'how to' books and magazines about, but they tend to cover a limited range of techniques (try finding a comprehensive book on perspective drawing, cyuh!) and each one tends to assume a certain approach. It would be nice to see what yer contemporaries are up to. I've always fantasised about an art equivalent of NME or Melody Maker, with interviews and a large techie section.
There has been a bit of this on TV over the years - there was a cracking series on the BBC about 2 years ago which took a single artist every week and went through the painting process from start to finish - but not nearly enough. And there's a column in Art Review each month which does much the same thing. Again, there should be more. I think there'd be plenty of people willing to both buy and contribute to a mag of the sort you describe.

I'd like to see artists being much more communicative in general, or at least given the chance to be. I don't know if it's concious or deliberate, but I think the lack of discussion about technique and practicalities etc contributes greatly to the irritating 'artist as mysterious genius' thing. I'd extend this to interpretation - why do we rely on critics to decide what a contemporary work is for / about when, if we're really interested, we could ask the artist? Is it because artists are inherently unwilling to talk about their work, or is it just a cultural habit we've acquired?
 
 
lentil
15:05 / 24.05.02
I wonder whether some artists are a little precious about revealing their "trade secrets". I think, though, that that would apply more to process painters than somebody like Glenn Brown (he's fucking good innee? Did you see him in the Turner Prize?). In his case, I don't think that a more detailed knowledge of his materials would give you much more insight into how he actually makes the paintings. I would imagine that he does use pretty top of the range stuff, cos he's successful and can afford to, but it just comes down to his skill really. Because his paintings are so detailed and utterly handmade, there's little room left for anyting to depend greatly on process. But of course materials do count, for things like surface and consistency. I reckon he applies his paint quite thinly and probably uses a bit of linseed oil for the lustre. But I don't know.

I think it is worth buying expensive, quality stuff, but you have to know when you really need it. For example, I usually buy mid-range oil paints, but splash out on stuff like lemon yellow, violet and cadmium orange, because the more artificial pigments are harder to manufacture and there's a greater difference between the best and the worst. Burnt ochre or whatever is much of a muchness however much you spend. Sometimes it works out just as economically anyway - because the pigments are so much stronger in, say, Michael Harding's cadmium orange than the Rowney Georgian version, you need a lot less when you're mixing colours.

Stuff like the photography based work you mention would, I think, be much more affected by equipment as the results are more closely linked with the physical process. That's when you can get a new piece of equipment and have loads of avenues of exploration opened up right away. But you can get great results, and processes nobody else has thought of, by being forced to work around the limitations of your tools and doing stuff with them that they weren't necessarily made for. I'd say a lot of the weird appeal of Darger's stuff comes from this. Well, technically anyway.

Do you think that the lack of an art equivalent of Guitar magazine is something to do with the fact that it's not really critically acceptable to spend too much time talking about the craft of a piece of work? Particularly as a lot of art doesn't really involve any.

I'll be interested to read you Richter review, btw - I'm not a massive fan but I generally enjoy his work, be interesting to hear him get slated, particularly as he doesn't seem able to do any wrong in a lot of critic's eyes.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:41 / 24.05.02
Hodge-podge of responses:

F*** yes! There are plenty of 'how to' books and magazines about, but they tend to cover a limited range of techniques (try finding a comprehensive book on perspective drawing, cyuh!) and each one tends to assume a certain approach.

My problem with the how-to books/magazine is that generally speaking, one wouldn't want to draw/paint/whatever like the person writing the book if one had any ambition. I'd prefer to see established artists recount their methods.

Did you see Glenn Brown at the Turner Prize?

Yes, that's where I was intro'd to his work. People can argue about the theoretical worth of working like he does, but its undeniable that he's got spectacular technique. And that's worth a lot. I'd like to see the pendulum swing back from more "conceptual" based art (although certainly Brown's work lends itself to a lot of theory-based discussion) to a concentration on technique and craft.

W/R/T to his possible method, I just want to learn how to minimize the appearance of brush-strokes in my work! I suppose that's one of the bad parts of being an auto-didact; no mentor to teach you the tricks.

Expensive, quality stuff...

Unfortunately, I made an investment in a bunch of student-grade paints when I was starting out, which mix like shit with the medium I'm using. I'm loath to buy all new stuff, because it's so expensive though, but I finally understand why people *do* buy high grade paints. Ditto with brushes. I'm not very careful with how I treat them.

not really critically acceptable to spend too much time talking about the craft

This is a shame, because it's from the best painters that I want to hear about craft rather than theory. Let critics talk about theory.

Richter Review..
I was pretty impressed by the reproductions I saw of Richter's work before I saw it in person. It was just...lifeless...Technically, some of the, say "candle" paintings from the early 80s are quite good. But his abstract work is utterly uninteresting, and the supposed political motivation behind the Baader-Meinhoff series of paintings has more to do with Andy Warhol's "Disaster" paintings than anything else, especially when juxtaposed with Richter's earlier figurative work. I have a bit more to say about it (and about Robert Storr's dreadful audio commentary) but I want to think about it a little more before I write a reasoned response.
 
 
lentil
18:34 / 26.05.02
The best way I've found to reduce the appearance of brushmarks (I like my paintings to be smooth too!) is to use linseed oil or linseed stand oil (rather sticky, need to dilute it w/turps or white spirit) and a synthetic brush. They're not massively expensive and last for ages if you take care of them, wash them out thouroughly with soap and hot water after a session. The ones I like to use have white bristles and silvery handles, I can't remember what they're called but they're made by one of the big manufacturers. Also, use paint in thin layers, which it sounds like you're doing anyway, and start off with a smooth surface. When I use canvas I prime it about 6 times and sand each layer of primer by sponging water over it and using wet and dry sandpaper (it's the black stuff).

[/fatbeard]
 
 
netbanshee
05:04 / 27.05.02
...flat surfaces are best obtained with a good gouache mixture or working the paint hard, unfortunately paint such as gouache may be a very difficult medium to control perfectly.

The idea of medium interests me in the fact that sometimes you'll run into a problem you're trying to solve and find that it might be better expressed in a different medium than what you're currently comfortable with. I've been creating these shapes for the last few years and I'm starting to find that they may translate better into 3d sculpture than line or graphic representation. It's been long enough where I feel I've tried to solve it many different ways (in the previous medium), but I think it might be a good shot to go elsewhere. Plus it'll be a nice change overall.

It's funny where you'll get caught sometimes...a broader experimentation can be a good answer...
 
 
Saveloy
12:08 / 27.05.02
{threadrot; sorry}

lentil:

"When I use canvas I prime it about 6 times and sand each layer of primer by sponging water over it and using wet and dry sandpaper (it's the black stuff). "

Eeenteresting.... what do you use to prime it with? I've only ever used oil on board before, having been put off by the texture of canvas.

{/threadrot; sorry}
 
 
lentil
15:25 / 27.05.02
”The idea of medium interests me in the fact that sometimes you'll run into a problem you're trying to solve and find that it might be better expressed in a different medium than what you're currently comfortable with”

Got me thinking about the relation of media to ideas, or content. I think a very basic comparison could be drawn between:

1) the “master craftsman” approach – in which an artist identifies hirself very particularly as a student of one particular form of artisanship. Ideas arise from the detailed study of their chosen form. For example, I am a sculptor making bronze casts. I notice a particular effect that is achieved when the molten metal is poured into the cast at a specific temperature. I seek to replicate this in my next piece of work, and this formal experimentation is the germ and bulk of the idea for that piece of work, moreso than any content or message.

2) the “conceptually appropriate” approach – the idea is formed as a standalone. I want to achieve a particular result, to affect the viewer in a specific way. I am not attached to any particular method of creating, and select the one I feel will best realise the idea I have had.

Now I realise that these are overly simplistic and that obvious objections to them are easy to find, eg. Very few artists work exclusively in one medium, but I’m using them as reductio ad absurdum goalposts to place different ideas about practise between. For myself, there is an aspect of my work that is very process based. I use household gloss paint in a particular way that I have been developing for a couple of years now. This has involved many repeated trials in order to perfect the process (I’m getting there!), and a lot of the pieces I’ve made using this method have involved a certain amount of “How else can I apply this process?” when generating ideas. However, my work is always representational, and so is heavy on subject matter, and I’m recently leaning more towards approach 2, thinking “I want to make a picture of this, what’s the best way to go about it?”. Maybe I’m trying to dovetail the two – an idea only really has that “click” if it’s an image I want to make and allows me to use my signature technique.

Rambling now…. Does anyone else identify either of these approaches in their own (or others’) work? Are they helpful ways to think about practise?

Saveloy: I use cheapo acrylic primer, Spectrum or whatever’s available. The wet and dry sanding is the thing – because the surface is damp the granules which otherwise would have become a sneeze-inducing dust stay in the water and then fall back into the gaps. Thick layers of primer, and let them dry properly. Best to spend a little extra on the canvas and avoid the coarsest stuff, one or two levels above bottom of the range should do the job. I’ve made myself sound really anal and exacting now but it ain’t really the case, I never size my canvases with rabbit skin glue which is what the real fatbeards do beforehand.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:29 / 28.05.02
Love the fatbeard stuff.

What does sizing do, anyway? I've read about it a little but I'm quite scared of the idea. Anyone? Anyone?

Lentil, your method of gessoing and sanding sounds like it would do the trick; however, I have an inability to sandpaper things. I get the most awful feeling up and down my spine whenever I use sandpaper. Much, much worse than screeching nails on chalkboard. So I'm afraid the prospect of doing that to several coats fills me with fear. I think I'm going to try and paint on panel next (when I run out of canvases). Is it necessary to prime panel?
 
 
lentil
07:29 / 29.05.02
Sizing
a) creates an impenetrable barrier between canvas and paint, and
b) when it dries it shrinks the area of canvas on which it's been applied. You can choose whether or not to add primer.
I've never bothered sizing because
a) primer does this anyway
b) I stretch the fuckers really tight as it is.
c) It's also a moderately laborious process involving boiling glue granules and it absolutely stinks.
The point of the whole priming/ sizing thing, apart from getting the surface you want, is longevity. It's up to you how much attention you want to pay to this. If the linseed oil in oil paint comes into contact with canvas, or indeed any porous unprimed surface, the surface will rot away. Very, very gradually. Francis Bacon, for example, painted on unprimed canvas, and most of his stuff seems pretty intact. Although I don't know how hard they are to preserve.
Re sanding: it's less scratchy than usual because of the water, but it can get screechy. There was a guy in my class last year who used heavily primed MDF, which gave a beautiful surface. But he sanded that fucker constantly.
 
 
Persephone
14:42 / 13.08.02
I was pretty impressed by the reproductions I saw of Richter's work before I saw it in person. It was just...lifeless...I have a bit more to say about it (and about Robert Storr's dreadful audio commentary) but I want to think about it a little more before I write a reasoned response.

Todd, did you ever write more about this? It's interesting, because my boss is an artist & really thinks that Richter is the greatest living painter, but had only seen him in reproduction; and he was disappointed --almost wistful, as if he'd lost something-- in the works live in the exhibition. I'm going to see it again tonight, just to see if I can see what he (and you) are talking about.

BTW I love gear fetishism threads; we should do more of these.

And what's a lomo camera? (I couldn't follow their website really...)
 
 
Saveloy
16:09 / 13.08.02
Re: reproductions, and being disappointed by the originals

That's cropped up here before, but I'm buggered if I can find the thread. Might have been another forum - if anyone finds it, fish it out, please.
 
 
Lilith Myth
22:34 / 13.08.02
Is this it?
 
 
Saveloy
15:40 / 14.08.02
Thanks Lilith, it should be, but it's not the one. I've a horrible feeling it was somewhere daft like the conversation...
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:03 / 15.08.02
A lomo is a russian made snapshot camera that was trendy a few years ago (now you can buy them on Amazon) that because of it's built-in light meter, tended to keep the shutter open for long periods when shooting in low light. It's a toy, basically, not for serious photographers, but for people who want to get cool, trippy, color saturated photos without having to mess with settings on the camera.

Re: More thoughts on Richter - I started a piece and never finished it. I dug out my notes however, and I'm going to try to finish something by this weekend. I managed to locate a lot of images online that were in the show, so all that detective work shouldn't go to waste.

If you want to read a REALLY harsh review of the Richter show, check out Jed Perl's story in The New Republic from a few months back. you should be able to find it on their web site.
 
 
Persephone
20:43 / 15.08.02
Gerard Richter is a bullshit artist masquerading as a painter?

This is raising so many questions in my mind... I don't even know where to begin, really.

In no particular order:

* I did not really care for Richter's abstractions, no.

* What I really loved was that damn Atlas. I could have looked at that all night. I want to start my own Atlas. I also wanted to start collecting discarded pictures outside of photo booths, too, after I saw Amelie.

* Is it so wrong to paint from photographs? I happen to like Chuck Close, too.

* "Painting is a philosophical enterprise that doesn't always involve paint." Discuss.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:17 / 16.08.02
Briefly (because I don't want to ruin my mojo for lengthier thoughts on this):

* Richter's abstractions seemed very calculated to me, and I do have a theory about them. I think he paints abstractly to try an escape his photographic eye. But he's not good at it.

* I didn't get a good chance to look at the Atlas, as the MoMA was incredibly crowded when I saw the exhibition. However, the Henry Darger exhibit I saw the same day had a similar collection of original sources (though not so, um, commericialized as Richters. I believe you can buy the Atlas to the tune of 80 bucks or something), and it was indeed fascinating. However, I have my own collection of bad snapshots taken on vacation, which leads me to:

* there's nothing wrong with painting from photographs at all (and indeed, David Hockney has a huge new book, which I haven't read, about the old masters using lenses (camerae obscura ) to achieve their eerily perfect drawings. What might be bad is painting from bad photographs: those taken with cheap snapshot cameras, those taken by hack photographers (crime scene, yearbook, paparazzi etc.) Portraits, even of a living person, resemble nothing so much as corpses when painted from such material. Richter's exhibition was filled with such paintings, discounting exceptions that were usually of family members. And even these paintings of family members weren't usually full-on portraits, being either profiles, 3/4s or even the backs of heads. The only exception to that were the portraits that he unforgivably flayed, and one anomalous, small scale portrait of his daughter done on panel, which happened to be the best painting in the show.

* Painting is more about the eye than paint, to my mind. There can be painterly photos and painterly movies. There can also be paintings that are done with the eye of a photographer, or the eye of snapshot taker. Richter doesn't see like a painter. he sees like a paparazza or a yearbook photographer. But his skill with paint is phenomenal.
 
 
Nessus
07:14 / 29.09.02
I think that the medium CAN be used to illustrate or illuminate the subject or "feeling" of a work, but its not absolutely necessary. However, most of the work that has affected me strongly has integrated the medium as an element of the finished artwork. To illustrate, Edvard Munch's "The Scream" was painted on cardboard, which IMO intensifies the emotional response. I haven't been lucky enough to fly to Denmark to see the original and the surface characteristics are not apparent in prints so my opinion is purely theoretical. The trade off, is the longevity of the original. Granted Munch's work has survived, but the environmental conditions it resides in have been closely monitored for a large part of its existance, a circumstance I'm afraid few of us can count on.
Another example is Dave McKean of Sandman fame. He uses a lot of found objects, mixed media and unconventional techniques to acheive the effect he wants. He photographs the finished work and uses the photos to show his work.

On the other hand, the cheaper materials do lack a great deal of quality of pigment, resistance to fading, etc.

On the subject of projectors, I have used one many times to project photos and sketches onto canvas and board but the "cheaper" (and I use that term loosely) ones are limited in the size of the original you can use and whether you can project a 3-D object. My projector was around $200 Canadian and is limited to 6" X 6" originals. The ones that can handle 11" X 11" and 3-D objects are closer to $1000, and they're huge. I must say that it has been invaluable for scaling small sketches into large works, definitely worth the investment.

I have found that brushstrokes can be minimized by working with thin glazes rather than opaque layers of paint. But, obviously technique and process are highly personal preferences and thats probably why there are no Guitar-like magazines for artists. I could tell you how I personally blend colors together, but it may not work for you because of other techniques that differ between us. Although when I was in school, I hated the fact that the instructors would tell us "what" to do but not "how" to do it. They wanted us to figure out our own methods or some such shit.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:34 / 30.09.02
Sorry, but I don't see how you can gauge the extent to which the medium affects your response if you haven't actually seen the original... because then what you're responding to is the print/reproduction. How can you say that you think that the fact that it's painted on cardboard affects your response to The Scream if, by your own admission, you can't or haven't see the surface characteristics of the original?
 
 
lentil
09:16 / 01.10.02
Unless Nessus meant that using cheap inferior materials rather than "proper" canvas intensifies the emotional repsonse in terms of Munch's status as a lowly outsider with no self - esteem. But Yes.

Todd - "Painting is more about the eye than paint" - kind of agree (I always think of Jeff Wall when people talk about other forms using a painterly language) but that argument is, i think, a product of recent-ish theory (say, since photo-realism, late 70s IIRC), and is more an alternative way of thinking about painting than a definitive statement reagrding what it's "about".
 
 
Nessus
22:01 / 02.10.02
Yes! thats exactly what I meant, yet much more concise than my version. As I said, my opinion is purely theoretical but I think it is valid to base an opinion on theory rather than solely on aesthetics. My personal opinion of good art requires that the work garners a response from me. Whether that response is mental or emotional, or based on aesthetics or ideas obviously depends on the nature of the work. The media used to create the work is definitely an important aspect of the whole.
 
  
Add Your Reply