| Author | Message | ||
  Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 433 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, No problem! I appreciate your kind thought and really just wanted to as*ure you that we are doing well. There are some dear friends around us, however, who are facing this old enemy death at the present time -- and Christmas does speak of hope for them. No doubt others on the board either are facing problems, or have friends and family who are struggling this Christmas. God bless us every one! | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 93 Registered: 2-2007 |
Oops! Sorry Jack. Merry christmas everyone. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 292 Registered: 10-2006 |
Rekha: Thanks for the heads up about the article. I had the magazine sitting in my studio and had not even read the article. I am glad that this issue is being discussed on a broader level. I can't comment on your reference to Eugene's opinion on this, I don't think it is all that clear. I'll be interested in reading the comments posted on the site they provided. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 431 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Joe. You will note from the dates on these posts that we lost my wife's father in March, and we have made good progress in moving on to another phase in our lives. The holidays, of course, always remind us of our loved ones, including those we have lost, but we are thankful that her father, at his very advanced age, is beyond all the pains and confusion that old age brought. We try to remember the better times. Our love and understanding to all who struggle with the same kind of losses. May the joy, peace and hope of the promises of Christmas be with you! | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 91 Registered: 2-2007 |
Eugene you should sell giclees of your sympathy card. It is gorgeous and I think one of your best. It has a lot of commercial appeal. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 90 Registered: 2-2007 |
Jack add my name to the list of condolences. When you have been so engaged in the care of a person the worst part, many times, is the absence of the person. You have my prayers. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 402 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, you may be closer to enforcing your views about what is watercolour. The current winter 2008 issue of the Watercolor magazine is engaged in the thorny issue of what constitutes watercolour. Some want to use Sargent's criteria and I quote 'Remember what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in the landmark decision in 1964 regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it" i.e. when it looks like watercolor it is watercolor' | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 205 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, Thank you! The painting is lovely. You are getting better by the hour! | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 240 Registered: 8-2006 |
A sympathy card for you and yours Jack  | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 107 Registered: 8-2006 |
May his soul be blessed on high. Our thoughts are with you Jack. Gary | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 227 Registered: 10-2006 |
You will definitely be missed and in our thoughts. Bonnie | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, you will be missed while you are gone, and we will keep you in our thoughts. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Best wishes through this. I know this is a tough time for you and your family. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 204 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I know watercolor and gouache have been used together in the past by many respectable and famous artists in a "watercolor" painting. However, when the painting is hung with identification information in a museum, it invariably identifies the media "watercolor and gouache." More recently, especially if other media is used as well, it will say "mixed media." All we're trying to do is to maintain the distinctives of each medium, even though in appearance they may often "appear" to be similar. By the way, I think true watercolors can compete with any other medium (oil, acrylic, pen and wash, gouache, etc.) in any show and any museum -- and I don't care whether they hang us mixed up with everything else or not -- though it can be a little disconcerting to bounce back and forth visually. I also should say, by way of apology, that having this board to think about has been very therapeutic for me. During all this time, my wife's aged father has been slowing dying of metastatic disease in our town, and she is his only daughter and sole support. He died early this Monday morning. I say this to let all of you know that I will probably be offline beginning next Monday, as we return his remains to his native state of Tennessee. I'll "see" you when we get back. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 226 Registered: 10-2006 |
George: I practiced watercolor for years before I ever attended a workshop by an artist who said: "It is okay to use whatever you need to use to save a painting." She included gouache (which I see to mean gosh this aches, I think I'll grab some gouache), ink, acrylic, and even tearing up and pasting on paper. The class was billed as watercolor but was clearly watermedia. Some people who are watercolor artists may use gouache occasionally and still paint watercolor, it doesn't make gouache watercolor. It is all news to me that anyone would consider watercolor an umbrella term. Under your definition George where would water based oil painting fit in? Do the oil societies accept it? If they do does that mean we are now all merged under the title of painting. If they don't does it mean that oil is maintained as a superior art form and every other form of applying something with a brush, stick, hand, foot, spray bottle, splash, etc., is called watercolor? | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I've never thought of watercolor as an umbrella term. Like the anonymous poster said, when you buy a tube of paint labeled, "watercolor", you're not getting acrylic paint or gouache or casein. When you buy an instructional book that has the word "watercolor" in the title, the contents are about transparent watercolor. Like I've said in the past, George. I think you'll find it easier if you use the words, "about" or "approximately" more often rather than finding exceptions and analyzing everything under a microscope.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I think the confusion of the terms watercolor and watermedia have two sources, one historical and one recent. For the entire history of watercolor the term “watercolor” has been used to identify both transparent watercolor and gouache. More recently, the use of the term watercolor has been complicated by the use of acrylic paint. Acrylic paint can be used in the watercolor style in one of three approaches; 1. acrylic paint can be mixed with transparent watercolor in the same painting. The result is mostly called a watercolor painting but sometimes it’s called mixed media. 2. acrylic paint can be used as the only paint in a painting, applied transparently and with no white and no opaque pigments. The result is often called a watercolor because it looks exactly like what we think of as a watercolor. 3. acrylic paint can be used in the style of a gouache watercolor. This is sometimes called a watercolor and sometimes an acrylic painting. Anyway, I always have agreed watermedia is a better term to use for all three of these, but most people have just called them watercolors. Perhaps because of the historical use of watercolor in connection with gouache, watercolor is thought of as an umbrella term. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 203 Registered: 8-2006 |
P.S. -- it surely is easy to become a "Senior Member" just by blabbering away, isn't it! We should not have such as exalted title simply by too much speaking or too much writing! Hats off to those of you who have contributed so much and wisely chose somehow to be known as "Unregistered Guests." | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 202 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Whitewatercolor (Bonnie?) and Kisha. I really was not trying to have a pity party -- just a "heads-up" to myself and acknowledgment to others that what I think is important to say sometimes may not be very relevant or helpful. I want to be sensitive both to responses and non-responses as a corrective and a learning experience. My tendency is to butt in too much and take up too much space. Nevertheless, thank you for the affirmations, and I really do hope to post things that are helpful and useful. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 224 Registered: 10-2006 |
Grizrev: I also agree and usually don't respond to you directly because you are making a good point that either I agree with or have been enlighted with. | ||
kisha Unregistered guest |
Grisrev--I agree and appreciate your saying this. I think you've actually been around longer than I. I tend to not say "I agree" online because it doesn't add new info to the thread, so know I agree. Two thumbs up. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 200 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eric, That is precisely my point. Those who want a big umbrella term to cover all forms of waterbased paint (including acrylic!), should use the term "watermedia" and NOT the term "watercolor." "Watercolor" has traditionally had a very specific meaning that I'd like to see preserved. I think Kisha would agree. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Griz- Watermedia is the big group, with transparent watercolor being a subgroup within that big group of "watermedia". Casein, gouache, acrylic would be other, separate subgroups within the "watermedia" group. Kisha mentioned something in another post about acrylics originating as an oil alternative. I have to say that I have always thought of acrylic as being closer to oil than watercolor. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 197 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, All Kisha (and many others) want is to preserve the term "watercolor" for traditional, transparent, gum-based watercolor. The term clearly is in danger of being taken over by those who should be using the term "watermedia" instead (including Watercolor Online!). I know we will have to live with reality -- language police are seldom able to stop changes in language through usage -- but Kisha doesn't want to give up without a fight. I have mentioned this before (I don't get many direct responses to my posts -- maybe that should tell me something; I guess I am an interloper in a long-established fellowship on this board). Nevertheless, I am curious what the rest of you think about this confusion of terms, "waterdcolor" and "watermedia." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, wow, I haven’t been called a Troll since I was in college and I forgot to buy roses for my girlfriend on valentine’s day. As for your belief that I want to be “right in every argument”, I realized shortly after I got married that it isn’t possible to be right in every argument. I’m sorry Kisha, I know the word watercolor has a special meaning to you, and I have tried my best to be sensitive toward, and respectful of, your feelings about the issue. If I’ve failed in doing that, please try to forgive me. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck: I guess to be honest I resent and and am increasingly out off by this deconstruction of the word watercolor as if it didn't have a long an vital tradition that watercolorists are trying to keep alive. I feel George's reason for living is to be right, to argue for it the sake of arguing and base the argument solely on sophistry. As a result I feel there is a betrayal of the spirit of what watercolor is and an overt effort to undermine the art some of us love. If this were a discussion in a pub, it would be of no consequence. But since this is a world wide forum and probably more influential than a pub conversation, I can say that the dogged pathology to be right in every argument has undermined the real issue of promoting watercolor. This board can be enjoyed by all but as in all boards online, trolls can exist to undermine and impede their progress, George, you are a troll. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
One thing that is pertinent is the history of an item. That sometimes helps in defining it's true purpose and nature. We can agree that acrylics didn't just spring from Zeus' forehead, but was a modification, improvement of sorts, on an existing medium. Which one should tell us how, historically, acrylics was perceived. Clearly acrylics was a modification of oils, not watercolors. It was developed to overcome the drying time issues of oil and the solvent issues. It had nothing to do with watercolor. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, This is from a very quick web search of acrylic painters in the watercolor style. I’m not a big fan of abstract art, but I have to admit this is a pretty good abstract painting, and a darn good acrylic. http://www.watercolorusahonorsociety.org/gallery_judy_gard.html | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I’m not a deconstructionist! I’m just reporting some observations I find in the world that lies at my feet. Here is an introduction from a watercolor website; “Watercolor Online is dedicated to the promotion of all forms of watercolor and the artists who create works in the various media encompassed by this broad classification. In this space, you can view works in acrylic, gouache, transparent watercolor, tempera, and various other water based paint.” http://www.watercolor-online.com/ The "various other" must be Casien! | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2006 |
In the broader term, watercolor is any pigment that is mixed with water, as opposed to mixed with oil. So I guess those using latex house paint will be at the door next. That one coat coverage should give quite an advantage. In my reading about acrylics however I did find the statement "acrylics cannot match the brillance of watercolor pigments." I believe that to be true. To get intense color with acrylic you risk gaudy bordering on offensive. Maybe we can search the web and see if we can find some acrylic painters whose work we like (as we did on composition issues). I'd like to see something that attempts to match the brillance of watercolor. I do know of a couple of acrylic painters whose work I admire, but they both use a neutralized palette. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 105 Registered: 8-2006 |
So: here is my proposed taxonomy for what we are discussing! Kingdom: Art Phylum: Visual Class: 2D art Order: Colored Art Family: Water based solvent Genus: Gum based fixative species: 1)Transparent watercolor, 2)Gouache Genus: Protein based fixative species: Casein Genus: Polymer based fixative species: Acrylics This taxonomy is completely independant of technique but does not exclude casein and acrylics from the family, only different genii. (don't take this stuff so seriously folks!) Gary | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 104 Registered: 8-2006 |
for the purists: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Perissodactyla Family: Equidae Genus: Equus Horses aren't ungulata, different order completely. Yeah, I'm a pedant! Gary | ||
kisha Unregistered guest |
That in itself is not necessarily persuasive though it is another stage in your deconstruction of the term watercolor. There is a difference in word meanings often when the jargon of a specific profession is compared to the meanings of words in the general public's usage. For instance among writers the word literature is almost synonymous with belletristic writers, the tradition of "belles lettres"-- thus Faulkner is literature but Tom Clancey is not. However, in the general public a sales brochure can be termed literature, as in, "On your way out of the showroom , grab some of our literature." Language is much more complex than you are seeming to realize and context, tone, and especially subtext are cues often ignored by otherwise informed people. It's interesting how all of this debate seems to be just modus oprendi of deconstructing the language and has really little basis in practical reality. For example, watercolor societies don't allow acrylics in because they see no difference with watercolor but simply because they are both water based media. It's a matter of both belonging to a general class, like horse and cattle both belonging to the Ugulate family. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Some of you may wish to sit down before you read this; I don’t want anyone to fall over in a state of shock and hurt yourselves. I just went to my Merrian-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) to see what it has to say about “watercolor.” It seems that Casein paint is a watercolor paint too. Did I hear someone say Kleenex? (please excuse the double meaning). | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Anonymous, that's a good one! George, I accept your apology. Bonnie, you're right, it's nice to be able to discuss this stuff. | ||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
So if I buy a tube of "watercolor" paint I may actually be squeezing out acrylic on my palette? Thanks for the heads, up, George. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, sorry about the use of the word “slander”! I was in a rush to get out the door to meet some people and could not think of a better word at that moment. It should have read; “do you really want to risk “misrepresenting” acrylic paintings based only on a feeling? The point about the posting from wikipedia is; that’s how many in the current art world understand the meaning of the word “watercolor.” Hay….lets be honest….the meaning of words change over time. That’s why they update dictionaries. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 221 Registered: 10-2006 |
Toooo Late Kisha.....Guess I better go outside and work for a while. If I can find the door, or was it window? Is it outside or outdoors? Is it work, play or contemplation--no I guess it's observation. Painting is such a solitary endeavor that it is good to have someplace to go to debate anything and everything. I have to admit, sometimes it's fun to push the envelope and I live with the proverbial "devil's advocate." So it's good to have George to discuss these issues with. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
You all realize of course that if you said the sky is blue there would be someone to say--"Technically it is not," and go on and explain why it actually is not based on a deconstruction of the meaning of blue. If you said the ocean is salty, he would argue that it is not based upon a deconstruction of the meaning of salty. etc. That's what makes him tick, his basic personality. Give up while you are still sane. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, it's just my opinion. Whether it's personal bias or fact or whatever it is, it's just me thinking out loud. Isn't that okay if I disagree with you on this issue? If you're throwing the word "slander" at me, then you're taking this too seriously. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 219 Registered: 10-2006 |
In doing a web search, it has become apparent that transparent watercolor now needs to be identified as such. The term watercolor is lost to a hodge podge of anything you can mix with water and put on a brush. No wonder so many people comment that they didn't think they liked watercolor. All that stuff that has to be identified as "watermedia" in the shows is now known to the public as "watercolor." If you are exercising the art of "transparent watercolor" you need to identify it as such and explain to the public what it means, join and form societies that advocate for and support the form of art you are doing, and make sure that when you discuss it, you are talking about the same medium. We should begin a thread for transparent watercolor. I guess I was caught off guard becuase when I first got on this thread, one of the first comments back to me was about my name, whitewatercolor. It was pointed out to me that most on this list practice transparent watercolor and white is not used. I have made the mistake of assuming that we were discussing the practice of transparent watercolor. I honestly didn't know that the term watercolor now means gouache, acrylic, and/or anything else that you can get away with. Now I understand how articles can be written about the lesser value of watercolor. They probably aren't talking about the same thing I practice. They don't say "transparent watercolor." Where have I been.... | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 195 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just to be clear -- I'm not saying that gum-based watercolor and gouache ARE the same material! They are just very similar and work in a very similar way, and are often used (even traditionally) together in a painting (though always identified on the museum information label as "watercolor and gouache.") Since they have been used together frequently (gouache usually in the minor role)in producing a watercolor, I can stretch far enough to allow both under my concept of a watercolor PAINTING. I don't think I'd ever be happy allowing acrylic to play gouache's role in such a painting however. I certainly }am not able to stretch as far as calling an entirely acrylic painting a "watercolor." I would prefer the label to say "acrylic watermedia." | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 194 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I think I understand. The article calls traditional gum-based watercolor and gouache "the same paint," but refers to acrylic as being a separate paint. However, it does put all three under the label "watercolor." I still feel that is not correct. Gum-based watercolor and gouache are esentially the same medium, are worked in a similar way and have similar painting characteristics, but acrylic is an entirely different medium and works in a very different way. I don't feel acrylic should be labeled "watercolor" with the other two. For that matter, it doesn't bother me to separate gouache from traditional watercolor as well, but I don't object as strongly to its being included as "watercolor." (You often see paintings identified as being composed of "watercolor and gouache" on museum mounts -- just like "watercolor and graphite.") "Watermedia" is as close as acrylic should get! | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 217 Registered: 10-2006 |
George--you can't slander with an opinion. Eric can believe anything he wants without a hint of slander. My opinion is the same as Erics. Where do you think wikipedia gets their definition? They get it from the popular culture. In our popular culture little green acrylic men have infiltrated our watercolor societies and said "I can't paint the way you do and I'm going to go away and stop paying my fees if you don't let me join and do it my way (by the way, those potter guys kicked me out the door). They tried to kick him out but he came back with his friends and his mommy and daddy, and as some of the old watercolor people died off, the new ones didn't see the harm, and opened the floodgates. Now the long tradition of watercolor is almost unknown by the public because when they go to shows it varies so much. There is at least consistency with oil and pastels. You can tell an oil painting when you walk into a room. That watercolor is either too gaudy or too weak looking. On another item, I stumbled across a site that warned about gouache. It was a warning that gouache was developed for short term use in the advertising business and doesn't have the same archival properties as watercolor. So, fret and fret about your watercolor pigments and then mix in a little gouache. I don't care. By the way, if its all watercolor daddy, why do they call some gouache and some acrylic? Everybody does it, Holbein, W&N, American Journey? I wonder what wikipedia says. P.S. I sure hope all the children we're killing in Iraq understand that it's a "War on Terror." At least they're dying for a good cause. Words are a marvelous tool for getting our way. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I agree painting wet on wet, while mixing the pigments on the paper, rather than the palette, is the ultimate skill in watercolor. But, very few watercolor artists (percentage wise) are doing watercolor that way. Jack, you didn’t read the Wikipedia quote correctly. It reads; “The term watercolor most often to refers to traditional transparent watercolor or gouache (an opaque form of the same paint), but also includes the use of thinned acrylic paint.” This is correct! It’s why I gave the Kleenex analogy. A Kleenex isn’t A Puffs, but we use the name Kleenex to identify both sometimes. That is all Wikipedia is saying about watercolor. Eric, this “general feeling” you have must be founded in something. The term “general feeling” implies it is not founded in fact. If it is founded in a personal bias, why keep using it to put down the acrylic artists. I don’t know you very well, but I know you well enough from this page to say you are far too decent a man to slander a group of artists (acrylic) based on a personal bias. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, generally speaking, I still believe watercolor is more difficult, but you're right, there are variables that can make the opposite true. It's just a general feeling that I'm talking about. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 193 Registered: 8-2006 |
Somebody ought to correct Wikipedia. It's always getting something wrong -- fortunately it allows corrections! Gouache may be the opaque form of "the same paint," but acrylic isn't. Only the first two are used in traditional watercolors. To be more accurate, the article should have identified all three as "watermedia," not "watercolor." Kisha, look out. You're being lured out of your "deafening silence!" | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Tom Lynch never paints wet on wet, but then, in person, his paintings look like acrylics. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 216 Registered: 10-2006 |
I don't know of many accomplished watercolor artists who don't paint wet on wet, mixing the pigments on the paper, rather than the pallette. Isn't that kind of a signature of watercolor? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I pretty much see it the way you do! That is, I agree with you. Eric, I don’t think anyone is as passionate about this issue as Kisha and Bonnie are, and there’s something about that kind of passion I just love, even if I do think the passion is misplaced. Your statement that; “an acrylic painter probably isn't skilled enough to produce a quality watercolor”, might be true, but I think the opposite is true too. Having been an acrylic painter for many years I can say a watercolor painter probably isn't skilled enough to produce a quality acrylic painting. The point is each takes different kinds of skills. The watercolor artist’s idea that watercolor takes more skill is a very vain and very false belief. If you attempted to do a research to find out if one was more difficult than the other, the researcher’s task of limiting the variables would prove very daunting. How would you limit the variables without favoring one painter or the other? For example; if you set up the experiment so that the acrylic artist was to use the glazing technique (used by the majority of the best acrylic artists), and required the watercolor artist to use the method of drawing out the image in detail and painting between the lines in a coloring book style (used by large numbers of watercolor artists), the result would show acrylic painting requires far greater skill than watercolor. If on the other hand you required both artists to use the same technique, what would that technique be? Whatever technique you pick would be unfair to one painter or the other painter. I agree with you that masking fluid, tape and other "aids" make traditional watercolor easier. The most difficult watercolor technique is wet on wet while mixing the paint on the paper rather than on the palette. It is so difficult to do watercolor this way that the vast majority of watercolor artists have never even tried to do it. As difficult as it is to do watercolor this way, it is far more difficult to do acrylic with the same technique. So, do you really want to continue thinking watercolor is more difficult? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 236 Registered: 8-2006 |
I really don’t mind acrylics in a watercolor shows if they look like transparent watercolors. So I guess transparency is the issue for me. I don’t know if I could tell a transparent acrylic from a transparent watercolor. And a touch of white highlight or touch of opaque color doesn’t bother me, just as it doesn’t bother me that Homer and other classic watercolorists sometimes used touches of opaques. In our local art asso. for prizes, we enter opaque acrylics used as oils in the oil category and transparent acrylics on paper used as watercolor in the watercolor category. For best of show, anything goes, including sculpture and mixed media. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Just to clarify: I meant paper, TRANSPARENT WATERCOLOR paint, water, brush. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, I'm probably not as passionate about this issue as Kisha and Bonnie, but I do tend to agree with them. 1. I don't know if an acrylic painting hanging next to my watercolor diminishes my painting. At least that's not quite what I'm thinking. What I'm thinking is that the acrylic painter probably isn't skilled enough to produce a quality watercolor. This may or may not be true, but it's what comes to my mind. I believe a major point they (and I) are making is that watercolor takes more skill (planning for saved whites, getting values right, etc.) than an acrylic painting (opaque). Therefore, it shouldn't be in a "watercolor" show. Taking it a few steps further, I've always thought it would be interesting to see the best watercolor paintings in a show that disqualified any use of masking fluid or tape or salt effects or other "aids". Just paper, paint, water, and brush. A show like that would separate the men from the boys! (and the women from the girls) Question 2: About 25-30 percent. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, fair enough, the Puffs example was lightweight, but you could say that traditional watercolor and acrylic are really the same thing, in that both are paint, but let’s move on. Groundhog Day! That’s a good one! Didn’t Bill Murray get it right at the end of that movie? What do you think the odds are we’ll get it right at the end of this dialog? Your point is (always has been) about the opaqueness of acrylics. You (Eric) see acrylics done in an opaque style in watercolor shows. I should point out, others have been concerned about all styles of acrylics in watercolor shows, opaque or not. But, let’s look at the opaque issue now. Eric, two questions; 1. How does that opaque acrylic painting sitting on the wall next to your watercolor painting diminish your watercolor painting? 2. How many opaque acrylic paintings are you seeing (percentage of total) in the shows your watercolor society puts on? | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 215 Registered: 10-2006 |
Right--it all doesn't matter. Anything goes. Anything is art. And I'm for it, whatever it is. Or whatever it is you said. What day is it anyway? As with the black paint issue--I surrender. I don't really care what you call art, when you hang it, or where you hang it. For the sake of my day I'm just glad we don't discuss important, life threatening issues here. Guess I'll go on over to a pottery site and see if I can get them to include watercolor under their banner. I think I'll call what I do pottery. They use water don't they? | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, reading these posts feels like the movie "Groundhog Day". I'll say it again. It's about the opaqueness of acrylics. Yes, I know, you can paint it thinly. But that's not what I'm seeing. I see acrylics done in an opaque style. By the way, most acrylic "how-to" books show acrylics done opaquely. The Puffs and Kleenex analogy isn't very good. They're both the same thing. Watercolor and Acrylic paint aren't the same thing. A more accurate comparison to Puffs and Kleenex would be comparing Winsor-Newton watercolor paint with Holbein watercolor paint. Same product, different brand. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
As a reinforcement of my last post, consider this: 1. Kleenex is a tissue. Traditional watercolor is a water media. 2. Puffs is a tissue. Acrylic is a water media. 3. Sometimes people call a Puffs by the name, Kleenex. Sometimes people call an acrylic painting by the name, Watercolor. Do we really need a special society to make sure people know a Puffs is different than a Kleenex? Footnote: isn’t Mr. Data a machine? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, now we are getting to the marrow at the heart of the bone. You say; “acrylic artists should not get away with using the title of "watercolor" for promotion of their medium. It is not watercolor it is a water media.” This is from; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; “The term watercolor most often to refers to traditional transparent watercolor or gouache (an opaque form of the same paint), but also includes the use of thinned acrylic paint.” In other words, according to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, both gouache and thinned acrylic paint are both also watercolors. Add to this the reality that (from Marie’s research) about half (perhaps more) of the “watercolor” societies appear to openly consider all three forms of water media as fitting under the umbrella of watercolor. | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 89 Registered: 8-2006 |
My point is what is one's goal. To create art or become a 'transparent watercolor society member'? | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 88 Registered: 8-2006 |
Years ago my husband and I use to attend surf contests, we would pay the entrance fee and that would get us a 15 minute session. During one of these we couldn't help but notice another peak down the coast firing off these perfect curls unriden. That was our last contest. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Bonnie--I am of like mind. What you have to remember is that on every starship there is Mr. Data who treats every issue with rigorous logic to a fault. He is always right in terms of sheer logic but at the same time in some subtle way totally ignores or misunderstands the subtext. No matter what issue you raise, you will get an argument. No matter what you say, you will be challenged by the fact that every idea shuts of routes in favor of others. If you take route A there will someone who will argue that routes B, C, D etc also exist and push for the routes you didn't choose for the sheer joy of argument. The problem is that is short circuits true discourse often in favor of arguing semantics. It does get old and you will notice in the days ahead my response to it (a deafening silence). | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 214 Registered: 10-2006 |
It is difficult to communicate in this forum because, in explaining one item, you can easily make another statement that can be taken out of context and twisted to completely different meaning, then go off in a completely different direction. I did not say that oils and watercolors should not be hung together. I did not say that acrylic and watercolor should not be hung together. I gave reasons why they may not be hung together. I certainly never said that watercolor couldn't stand up to oil or should not be strong enough on its own to steal the show. Every award I've ever won has been with watercolor competing with all mediums--sometimes pottery, glass, sculture, included. I am of the opinion that acrylic artists should not get away with using the title of "watercolor" for promotion of their medium. It is not watercolor it is a water media. If watercolor is passe, it will disappear. If it is not passe, it will not disappear. Some have voiced the opinion or concern that watercolor societies may no longer be able to stand on their own. If they cannot, they will and should cease to exist. It has nothing to do with whether an acrylic is an acrylic or a watercolor. Watercolor is an art form in its own right. Many people have spent their lives perfecting it as a medium. Allowing it to be misunderstood as an art form to include the use of acrylic paint is something I am not willing to sit by and accept. Any effect that you can get with any other medium you can and should be able to get with watercolor. If you have to use another medium, it is a crutch or shortcut. I for one applaud those out there who spend their lives attempting to take watercolor to a higher level and to my dying breath I will advocate for their right to form societies to support and promote each other in that endeavor. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 103 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bonnie, you said "because they are dogs of different breeds", but I was just watching the Eukanuba Seattle dog show and all the breeds are compared to each other. Best of show is best of show. The categories are very broad: non-working dogs, retrievers, etc. But the breeds are totally mixed up and the final is the cross group show where its every dog for itself! The same is true of art. Your paintings HAVE to stand up by themselves on their own merits. Not based upon the medium, but upon the ART. Gary | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, true, that was only one museum. In another museum I found the watercolors in a basement hallway next to the elevators. They were hung by themselves. In a third museum the only watercolors I found were in a special traveling show of paintings by one watercolor artist. In a fourth museum I found the watercolors in a separate gallery with special lighting. I assume because of the light sensitive pigments used in older watercolors. In a fifth museum the only watercolors I found were part of a special traveling show of six famous watercolor artists. In three other museums I found the watercolors mixed in the same gallery with the other paintings but they had their own wall. In no museum have I yet found the watercolors interspersed with the other paintings. Bonnie, who said watercolor is passé? I don’t buy your idea that a watercolor should not be hung next to an oil because one is beautiful, glowing, and transparent while the other is heavy and bold. An oil painting can be beautiful, glowing, and transparent too. My watercolors have been hung next to oil paintings in art shows. I think oils and watercolors can look great together. I also don’t buy your idea that acrylic, when sprinkled in a show of watercolors, is not attractive. I personally find a good mixture of styles and approaches to art make for a more exciting show. It also makes for better comparisons between the two types of paintings. Is that what you’re worried about Bonnie? Are you concerned that if the general public sees the acrylics and watercolors hanging together they might prefer the acrylics. Do you really think so badly of the potential for watercolor to complete in the same show? | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 213 Registered: 10-2006 |
I've never heard of watercolor having a separate section at shows or galleries because of watercolor painters having enough influence to demand it. The only exception is a show sponsored by a watercolor society, by advocates of watercolor. They should be exclusive to watercolor. When they are being hung separately in galleries and shows, I would guess it is because they are dogs of different breeds. A beautiful, glowing, transparent watercolor and a heavy bold, oil, may certainly require different hanging situations and could detract from each other. If you've ever tried to hang a mixed show, you'd understand. Just the glass and the different styles of frames used, and the mats, make it very hard to show them in close proximity. I feel the same way about acrylic. When sprinkled in a show of watercolors, it is not attractive. The show loses something special. To me it is like sprinkling discordant notes in a piece of soothing music. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 223 Registered: 8-2006 |
You are basing your conclusion, George, on one experience of '...asked why the watercolor paintings were not in a gallery with other paintings. She didn’t know'. If you had gone further to investigate the real reason for drawings and watercolours grouped together I may have reason to accept the arguments you follow later. You are trying to find evidence to fit your theory which apparently don't exist. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 212 Registered: 10-2006 |
You're probably right George. Maybe watercolor is passe. Maybe it is just a background for acrylic or a study for oil. Maybe it is just too difficult to handle for enough people to do pure watercolor in the form that it can stand on its own. There just aren't enough people who practice it well enough to form a society and it pisses off other artists that people even try. I will continue to practice the forbidden art, but I still would ask that the acrylic societies use their own name and not denigrate and/or mislead the public about what watercolor is. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 102 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I can't fault you for your logic. When I began to paint again after a >30 year hiatus, I took up water colors because it was a less expensive entree into the field. I have since done oils and watercolor pencils as well, but I still LIKE the H20 somewhat better. I feel that each medium has much to reccommend it for its special properties, and that they each can stand on their own merits. BUT...this fracturing of the art community by media type is definitely counterproductive to learning AND income! Watercolor won't pay as well as oils and acrylics and collages until it hangs together in the SAME GALLERIES. No special discrimination required. Gary | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I want to expand on this idea that we watercolor artists are turning watercolor paintings into the freaks of the art world. A few years ago I visited a major art museum and asked at the information desk where I could find the watercolor paintings. I was told that the watercolor paintings were in the gallery with the drawings. I asked why the watercolor paintings were not in a gallery with other paintings. She didn’t know. In that same museum I found the acrylic paintings in a gallery with oil paintings hanging next to them. If acrylic paintings can hang next to oil paintings why can’t watercolor paintings hang next to oil paintings? I’ve always thought something was wrong with how watercolor paintings are thought of. Now I find out that watercolor painters like it this way. Watercolor painters don’t want acrylic paintings hanging next to watercolor paintings in watercolor shows. Watercolor painters don’t want oil or acrylic paintings hanging next to watercolor paintings in general art shows, and insist on having their own category. What kind of message are we sending to the general public about watercolor paintings? Oh! No! Wait! I’m forgetting, almost half of the watercolor societies (from Marie’s research) consider watercolor paintings to be water media. They are right up front about it on their home page. They have no problem with acrylic paintings hanging next to watercolor paintings. Jack’s reference to another watercolor site shows that Cheap Joe’s website might be the odd ball site where the watercolor artists who don’t want an acrylic painting next to a watercolor painting hang out. Is this true? It seems to me that if the general public were to see more watercolors hanging next to acrylic paintings, or next to oil paintings, we would not be thought of as the freaks of the art world. If we spent our time and energy insisting that watercolors hang next to acrylic paintings in the museums, instead of insisting that watercolors NOT hang next to acrylics in any art show anywhere, we’d be doing a whole lot more for the image of watercolor. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I’m sorry, hysteria was a strong word to use. I should not have used it. I also apologize for the poor attempt at humor concerning watercolor brushes. I guess it just seems odd to me to hear all the concern that has been expressed about acrylic paint. If my watercolor painting hangs next to an acrylic painting in a watercolor show how does that in any way, have any effect at all on my watercolor painting? It doesn’t! Sometimes I feel that we watercolor artists may be our own worst enemies. Every year I enter a local art show. The show has a special category for traditional watercolor. Watercolor is the only type of paint with its own category in the show. But, the watercolor artists can also enter the general category that the oil, acrylic, other painters enter. I have never understood why the watercolor artists insist on having their own category. What it says is; we watercolor artists are different and we want to be treated different, so we need our own separate category. Why do we want to be seen as different? Many of the watercolors that are entered into the general category with the oil, acrylic, other painters have won awards. If the watercolors can win awards against the oils and other paintings, why isn’t that good enough? All it does is piss off the oil and acrylic painters. They can’t enter the watercolor category, but have to share awards with the watercolor artists in the general category. I understand this is just one show, but the point is; why do we insist on being different? Aren’t we (watercolor artists) just turning watercolor paintings into the freaks of the art world? Why do we go to such extremes to segregate ourselves by claiming acrylic artists who paint in the watercolor style don’t belong in our societies? To be honest, it makes very little sense to me. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 211 Registered: 10-2006 |
George: I guess I just haven't noticed the "hysteria" or the "infestation" a "discussion" and "usurpation" maybe. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I don’t think there is any “momentum” in artists abandoning traditional gum-based watercolor. Acrylic paint handles in a different way than watercolor. It’s all about personality! A smart artist will experiment with different paints to find what fits their personality. My guess is just as many artists switch from acrylic to watercolor (like I did) as there are who switch from watercolor to acrylic. Anyway, the watercolor people over at the art cafe are into experimentation much more than the people here at the Cheap Joes site. That doesn’t mean they will switch paints. The one thing I found interesting in your attachment is in the advice given for using acrylic paint - “Letting the white of the paper shine through the colors is what you're after.” In spite of all the hysteria that has been posted on this page concerning opaque acrylic paintings, the people who are actually using the acrylic paint in the watercolor style realize the most beautiful way to use the acrylic paint is transparently. My guess is the next big panic will concern the use of watercolor pencils, watercolor pens, and watercolor crayons. How dare they not use a brush!! What is the watercolor world coming to? :>) | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 192 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just came across an interesting thread on another web site that speaks to the momentum acrylics are gaining in the world of watermedia/watercolor. I, too, am concerned that artists seem to be abandoning traditional gum-based watercolor for this flashy newcomer! http://artcafenetwork.net/abb/showthread.php?tid=1089 | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 233 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well said, Bonnie. I feel that it's important to establish one's own style, and this is hard to do if you are constantly switching surfaces and/or media. OK, experiment once in a while, but find what suits you best and stick to it, be it Yupo, canvas, paper, watercolor, acrylic, gouache or whatever. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 206 Registered: 10-2006 |
I find it really different. It doesn't soak up the water/pigment at all, takes longer to dry, doesn't flow the same, etc., but I'm not really saying it is better or worse than paper. I'm just such a purist. It is different. I have painted and sold paintings on watercolor canvas. They may have sold faster than under glass. I don't know, I only painted a few. The reason I do not paint on canvas is because I have already established a market for my watercolor on paper. I just find it easier to group and show my paintings on paper without mixing in the canvas. When a painting sells, I can stick a watercolor, under glass in the spot, and still have a nice display. For me it would be like jumping off the deep end of a pool when I wasn't sure if I had the stamina to swim to the side. I only have one life and so much time and I've invested so much in paper. I do like Tom Lynch's paintings on canvas. I do believe he sells more. I certainly would recommend people try canvas who haven't already established a market for their watercolors on paper, or are in the beginning stages of watercolor study. I think it will be an important art form of the future as more people discover it, both painters and buyers. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I shouldn't have said "no different" than cold press. It is slightly different, but not as different as many might think. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Eugene, judging from your work I've seen here, your style should translate nicely to the canvas. It's really no different than cold press paper except as Garydoc says, you might go a little thicker when you're painting the darks. Also, the multiple layer approach won't work well. Other than that, it's pretty similar. And no glass or matcutting!! | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 101 Registered: 8-2006 |
Dale, I've painted a couple of W/C canvases (one of my son is posted somewhere here) and you can use all w/c techniques. You have to be very careful about lifting a previous passage if you do multiple washes, but it can be done. Also, you need to paint slightly thicker or richer. You should give it a couple of tries just to see the differences. Gary | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 230 Registered: 8-2006 |
I've never used w/c canvas, because to me watercolor must be done on paper. I'm sure that nice things can be done on it, but is it really watercolor? I'm a "wash" watercolorist and I understand it is difficult to do a "traditional" wash or glaze on canvas. To me juicy washes are what make w/c different from other media. Guess I'll always use CP or Rough paper. I don't even like Hot Pressed. All this is speculation, I've never tried it because I'm happy with what I've got. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I use the watercolor canvas 75 percent of the time. It's more similar to painting on cold press paper than hot press paper is. (Except for the fact that you can wipe off mistakes with canvas, that is.) I really haven't marketed my paintings much yet, so I don't know if they sell better than paper. But Tom Lynch claims they do. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Now that I know acrylic artists are infestations, I think I’ll go bury my old acrylic paints before someone sees them and tries to exterminate me? :>) I’ve never used the watercolor canvas. It seems like it might be good for plein air work. But, since I’ve not used it I can’t say for sure. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
t this point I don't think any minds are going to change --I don't want to contribute to beating this w/c vs acrylic thing to death, so I propose we revisit the question of w/c canvas. I have never used it but am open to it. It strikes me that it would be like painting on gessoed paper, somewhat. Is this the case? Have any of you noticed if buyers are more receptive to it than paper under glass? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
er---infestation. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Good analogy Bonnie, but one flaw. Genocide is killing members of your own species. Acrylic and watercolor painters are not of the same species. It would be like getting rid of an infestion. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 203 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'm sure the watercolor societies would continue to exist. If they are in danger of extinction, it is more likely because of watercolor artists leaving them because of the acrylic issue. If the acrylic artists would form their own societies, there would be twice as many art societies and therefore that many more societies advocating for the arts, arranging events, holding classes, etc. Kisha's niche analogy is a good one--but the tick wouldn't be much without the dog. I see acrylics more in the terms of parasitising watercolor. Taking the term "watercolor" that many before us have worked so hard to define and build a constituency for, and redefining it for their own purposes. The best way to eliminiate competition for resources (in this case the purchasing public) is genocide. Humans have been practicing it for a long time. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, The “species that loses becomes extinct” argument assumes the two can’t coexist. This morning I was thinking about what Bonnie said about the acrylic painters forming their own societies. I think there are about 80 watercolor societies, give or take a few. If the acrylic painters pulled out to form their own societies what would we have? I don’t know, but lets assume it comes out to be 40 watercolor societies and 40 acrylic societies. That’s 40 fewer cities where watercolors would be hanging in shows. Because of the financial support of the acrylic membership in the watercolor societies, the viewing public has greater access to watercolor paintings. Isn’t that a good thing? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George, the problem is one that is totally predictable: Acrylic painters are allowed in the group. They ascend to positions of leadership. The shows and workshops begin to favor them. Their sheer numbers marginalize the watercolorists. This is what happened to us and this is what could happen in more of the watercolor groups. It is based on human nature---the acrylic artists are like a second sepecies fighting for the same biological niche. It's certainly a natural process and from a Darwinian perspective, no problem. Of course the species that loses becomes extinct, but hey, that's p}rogress! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I think this kind of proves the point Maidensmith because few artists from the past based their careers on watercolor. My point is watercolor has just now come into its own in terms of archival pigments and in terms of being taken seriously, but it is still the unappreciated step child of the art world. It needs an advocacy framework. It's as if club for women CEOs was established so they could meet and fraternize and the men cried foul and demanded to be admitted. They would have reasonable arguments why they should be, just as there are reasonable arguments to allow in acrylics into watercolor shows, but at the end of the day the women have struggled long and hard against great odds to achieve their positions, their jobs are harder because they have to juggle added variables such as family and work obligations, they are in the minority as CEOs and perhaps need their exclusive club. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
"Concerning the “no absolutes” statement. There is One absolute. The only real slippery slope we need worry about is when we reject that One absolute." This was Dostoevsky's exact point, George! I agree. | ||
Maidensmith Junior Member Username: Maidensmith Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2006 |
In studying the history of art, I can remember no emphasis on watercolor or any other kind of societies being important at all. Artists throughout history have used whatever they wanted to express their vision. The Academy was turned upside by the impressionists. Strict rules do not guarnatee good art. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, good for you! Research is always the best way to find out what the facts are. Thank You! | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 277 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just took a look at 28 watercolor society websites to find out exactly what is allowed. Here's what I found: * 13 societies: water-based media, no restriction on type or application of paint; several societies, particularly in the midwest, prohibit watercolor canvas and/or yupo. Tennessee doesn't have restrictions, but they do resevere one award reserved for "totally transparent" watercolor. * 3 societies: water-based media, but must be aqueous (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky) * 11 societies: no prospectus or faq available * Oklahoma doesn't currently have the prospectus for their National show so I'm not sure what they allow, but they *do* sponsor a separate show for mixed media and collage. The Transparent Watercolor Society is the only group I can find that completely prohibits acrylic. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, no one who possesses a gentle soul like yours could ever start a controversy. Anyway, I don’t see this as a controversy. I see it as an airing of thoughts concerning an issue of concern to the watercolor community. If anything it has given me a greater admiration for Kisha and Bonnie because of their openness in expressing their thoughts and feelings. Our conversation may help others to understand the issue better. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, forgive me! I didn’t mean to make personal remarks about how you think or how you feel. you asked; “can acrylic stand on its own without watercolor? Why haven't they formed a society?” I didn’t answer your question because I have no idea why they haven't formed a society. I assume they haven’t formed a society because in the majority of watercolor societies they are accepted as fellow artists, and are welcomed with the love and generosity most humans display for their fellow humans. Kisha, your society is not typical! Your statement that the acrylic artists; “think of the club as theirs and the watercolorists are now in the minority”, suggests that it has become a power struggle between the watercolor artists and the acrylic artists. I don’t know how this happened in your society. It’s very sad when any group is pulled into the kind of division you describe. It would be better if all involved had the same goals for the society, but since that seems not to be the case and there is so much bitterness between members it sounds like it would be better not to associate with a group who’s members are so power hungry. Concerning the “no absolutes” statement. There is One absolute. The only real slippery slope we need worry about is when we reject that One absolute. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 226 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gee, I seem to have a talent for startng these controversies. Sorry. EUGENE | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 200 Registered: 10-2006 |
Thank you Kisha, for taking the time to provide this information. I've paid my last dues to any watercolor society other than the transparent watercolor society. Well shucks, guess that's what I get for being so isolated. I'm just subsidizing acrylic painters. No wonder people actually print articles that question the value of watercolors. We no longer have an advocacy group. In a world rife with competition in the arts, watercolor is left floundering. Watercolor seems to be in dire straits here--we better join the last remaining society before anybody else dies off. Oh wait--another thought. Let's start forming watercolor societies and publicly pressure the acrylic societies to come out of the closet and stop using our name. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 199 Registered: 10-2006 |
“only the medium that the society purports to represent should be allowed in the show.” I don't think this statement is ambiguous. Water color societies purport to represent watercolor. Please don't make personal remarks about how you think I feel about this or how I am reacting to this. I think my opinion is perfectly clear. Unfortunately it is human to push the envelope and every organization, society, culture, etc., is constantly under pressure to move the boundaries. Maybe there are personality differences between those who chose oil and those who chose watercolor. How many oil pastels have you see in an oil society? They both use oil don't they? I wonder how many watercolorists would join a watermedia society? You didn't answer one of my questions George, can acrylic stand on its own without watercolor? Why haven't they formed a society? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Yes--I just got off the phone with the president of our watercolor society after asking her to justify why acrylics were allowed to dominate shows. Her response was three fold: A. Allowing acrylics creates a much larger membership and that, to her, is a self-evident benefit (Why not open it up to toll-painters if all you want is increased membership? B. We can't change the title from Watercolor Society to Watermedia Society because of the groups non-profit IRS status without unacceptable levels of paperwork and red tape. C. Acrylic artists WERE ORIGINALLY LET IN ON THE BASIS THAT THEY PAINT IN A WATERCOLOR TRANSPARENT STYLE but since the hair splitting of how to determine when they were crossing the opaque line was problematic, all acrylics in paper regardless of style are now let in. Furthermore, many of these artists have officer position and hire the show judges from an acrylic juror bias. They think of the club as theirs and the watercolorists are now in the minority. The question for me is--and it is a rhetorical one--Is this anyway to sustain and promote watercolor--a very unique and special medium? And no, I wouldn't agree that if acrylics were let in on a transparent basis only it would be fine. See the slippery slope argument below. Anything can be countered by the argument "It's all relative to the perceiver." This means that there are no absolutes and in the end anything goes. Dosteovsky's novels all address the issue of what happens if we have a world where everyone truly believes this and acts on it. Perhaps I'm a bit conditioned by his insights, conditioned enough to want a few sactuaries where the fragile can survive. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, very good! In your second post you are giving me examples of things that are very different. This illustrates that for you the difference between traditional watercolor and acrylic is HUGE! I accept that for you (and others) the difference is huge! However, your first post suggests that the majority don’t see this huge difference that you do. You state; “watercolor shows are becoming so acrylic laden that often they are supplanting the very art, watercolor, the show and more importantly the club or society, exists to foster.” If, as you say, the watercolor shows are becoming acrylic laden, it is because many watercolor artists, and the societies they belong to, do not see a huge difference. Your third post is the best! You challenge the idea that acrylic paintings in the watercolor style are the ones being allowed into the shows. I accept that you have seen few if any acrylics done transparently in watercolor shows. However, this is not my experience. All the acrylic paintings I’ve seen in shows were in the watercolor style. But if you are right and some acrylics are getting into shows that are not in the watercolor style it is an easy problem to fix. The watercolor society can make it very clear that all paintings entered into a show must be in the watercolor style. I assume you agree this would solve the problem. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
"today allow acrylic paintings that are in the watercolor style into shows, "...George The problem is that this is not true. Once acrylics are in they are in in any manner as long as done on paper. I've seen few if any acrylics done transparently in watercolor shows. They are almost all opaque--and I think that is where you are way off, George. We are talking about practical results from opening the door to acrylics (like allowing acrylic workshop presentersinvited by the acrylic artist members presenters to jury the shows). You keep coming back to the lynch pin condition that watercolors and acrylics can be made to look alike. In the real world it ain't happening and there's the rub. We need organizations that value the watercolor medium enough to support it fully. I know you'll come back with another bit of sophistry so why am I bothering???? | ||
kisha Unregistered guest |
Let's argue from analogy a bit more-- Watercolor shows allowing a huge number of their entrants and winners to be done in acrylic is like-- a. A vegetarian ordering a soy burger and getting a hamburger.can be seen as similar or differentare similar or different; they both look the same though the taste and consistency may be different. Whether they are more similar or different is in the eye of the beholder--a glass half empty, half full sort of thing.) b. Marrying a woman and discovering that she has an extra appendage. (Men and women are quite similar -- one person sees their difference, one their similarities. the one who sees their similarities would be much happier in this situation). c. Wearing a tuxedo to a beach party. (bathing trunks and tuxedos have many similarities. The differences are often exaggerated). d. Pouring a glass of wine and finding the liquid in it has been replaced by Worchestershire sauce. (Both of these are served at meals and both come in bottles. The differences are merely superficial). | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I peat, "I question whether everything should come down to a matter of opinions, or more clearly whether some things really are issues that rise to the level of generating conflicting opinions. Case in point--I and some one or two others lamented the fact that watercolor shows are becoming so acrylic laden that often they are supplanting the very art , watercolor, the show and more importantly the club or society, exists to foster. This is fact." One can have any opinion he wants about this fact, but this still remains the basic fact. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
To put the argument from my last post into the example of the college sorority, I think a college sorority has a right to vote on, and pass, a rule that kicks out girls who are not thin enough, or pretty enough. They make themselves look foolish, but they have a right to behave that way. However, it is a totally different thing for the girls from the college sorority to claim that; all college sororities should kick out girls who are not thin enough, or pretty enough, and then be upset if the majority of college sororities don’t listen to them. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, actually I did hear you correctly. Your clarification is; “only the medium that the society purports to represent should be allowed in the show.” Therefore, since the majority of watercolor societies in the country today allow acrylic paintings that are in the watercolor style into shows, it can be assumed that these societies represent both acrylic and traditional watercolor as painting mediums acceptable to the societies. In other words the majority of watercolor societies “purport”, by their actions, to “represent” acrylic as an acceptable medium in watercolor shows. That’s been my point from the very beginning of this dialog. I understand that you have a right to disagree with the majority of watercolor societies. I deeply respect your right to disagree! What I don’t understand is the anguish I sense over this disagreement. Is it really worth all the anguish? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 198 Registered: 10-2006 |
No you don't hear me correctly. It is about what's in the show. Only the medium that the society purports to represent should be allowed in the show. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, fair enough! A society that allows acrylic paintings in the watercolor style should change the name of the society to "water media society." Perhaps they will at some point in the future. What I hear you telling me now is; if the majority of watercolor societies change their names to water media society, you are fine with acrylic paintings being judged in their shows. Do I understand you correctly? It’s not about what is in the shows, it’s about the name of the society? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, very good! As I said half way down this thread; “I think everyone would agree (including me) that acrylic paints are different from traditional watercolor paints.” My question is: should that difference cause us to be snobs? If your local watercolor show, that you recently attended, had several acrylic paintings that were painted with big blobs of paint that looked out of place at a "watercolor" show, then your society is at fault, not the acrylic artists. The society should have made it clear as to what is, or is not, acceptable in the show. But, that’s a different degree of standard you’re talking about! In your case the college sorority would be kicking out members because they are men instead of women, not because of their dress size. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 196 Registered: 10-2006 |
If you are going to have a society for a medium, yes, I am saying only that medium should be judged in that society. If you want to have a watermedia society to include various watermedia, mixed or not, that is okay. Call it a "watermedia society." Stack it any way you want but call a spade a spade and judge a spade among the spades, don't include the shovel. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Acrylics are different than watercolor and I'm happy! | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, yes we're saying that. (or at least I am.) The acrylic painting doesn't measure up to our standards. It's good to uphold high standards. The local watercolor show I recently attended had several acrylic paintings. They were all painted opaquely, and some were big blobs of paint that looked out of place at a "watercolor" show. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, if acrylics and watercolors differ very little, or if they differ a great deal, is much like the, glass half full, glass half empty, argument. One will say the glass is half full, the other will say the glass is half empty. Both are right! The difference is; the person who believes the glass is half full is most often happier, and has less stress, than the person who believes the glass is half empty. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I love the wordplay (palette-able) – very creative! Acrylic doesn’t disguise itself as watercolor. From the time acrylic paint was introduced it has been touted as a paint that can be used in either the style of a oil painting, or in the style of a watercolor painting. Should acrylic have its own society? Perhaps! If acrylic artists form their own society I’m fine with that, but why should they be forced to form their own society? When a watercolor artist views acrylic as a threat to the watercolor society and suggests the acrylic artists form their own society they are being exclusive. Yesterday I read a story in the paper about a college sorority that kicked out about twenty members because they didn’t have the right dress size and were viewed as a threat to the sorority. Aren’t we really saying the same thing to acrylic artists – you’re painting (body) doesn’t measure up to our standards. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
"If acrylics and watercolors differ very little, or if they differ a great deal, is a matter of personal view. " Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 195 Registered: 10-2006 |
George--If acrylic paint can stand on its own, it should have its own society. Is the only way it can gain recognition by disguising itself as watercolor? Or does it have to be combined with watercolor to be palatable or should I say palette-able? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I very much admire your directness. I always have admired that about you. Yes, it is a fact that a few watercolor societies have had a number of paintings with acrylic based paints accepted into their shows. This is more true with your society than with the majority. Yes, it is also reasonable that on a watercolor discussion board, that this would be a matter of some concern. You and others have expressed the concern very well. It is however not a fact that I have argued that acrylics “belong” in watercolor shows. All I have ever said is; this is the way things are. If acrylics and watercolors differ very little, or if they differ a great deal, is a matter of personal view. They differ very little in the minds of many people. They differ a great deal in the minds of many others. As I said; I accept this, and always have. The main point of your very heartfelt post is that you see me as trying to “burst your bubble.” I think it is good that on this board you can find some sort of shelter as a watercolor artist. My concern is that you feel you need a shelter. My posts have not been about my debating skills. They were sincere attempts to help you see acrylic paint in a better light - a less threatening light. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--You seem to take a contrarian pride that your opinions make others uneasy. Your opinions don't make me uneasy. It's just that I question whether everything should come down to a matter of opinions, or more clearly whether some things really are issues that rise to the level of generating conflicting opinions. Case in point--I and some one or two others lamented the fact that watercolor shows are becoming so acrylic laden that often they are supplanting the very art , watercolor, the show and more importantly the club or soietry, exists to foster. This is fact. In several venues acrylics are supplanting watercolors. It it also reasonable that on a watercolor discussion board such as this that this would be a matter of grave concern to those affected becasue we want to see watercolor flourish--call it myopic, but we are a WATERCOLOR group here on this board, Ratehr that being a bit supportive of watercolor or of those battling this issue, you take the contrarian turn and argue with great tenacity that acrylics belong in watercolor shows, that acrylics and watercolors differ very little, and that even if acrylics supplanted watercolors in these venues it would be okay with you. I do not dispute the rigid logic that led you to these conclusions. I do not really dispute that in the way you presented your opinions, you were right. What I am saying is that the very fact that you take this sort of tack undermines and sense that here on this board we can at least find some sort of shelter as watercolorists, In other words if someone always finds a logic reason to burst your bubble, they can feel proud of their great logical prowress and debating skills. Still, burst enough bubbles and something is lost, something vital. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I accept (always have) that for some artists who create the art the difference is immense. I also accept that that's not an insignificant fact for you (and others). In rereading my last two posts I realized I came off as judgmental. That was not my intent. Unfortunately it’s not possible to make changes to a post on this site. The basic contrarian streak you mentioned is really just my mind being different from others. My habit (most of the time) is not to state my opinion on things because, as a young man, I learned that my opinions usually make people uneasy. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
To the artist who creates the art the difference is immense. That's not an insignificant fact. Also, acrylics by most artists that I have seen look very recognizably different from watercolors. Your art may look similar from medium to medium but I doubt seriously you are typical. George, I really think you steer these discussions to conclusions such as these because you have a basic contrarian streak. So9metimes I feel that the threads are being hijacked, but that's just me. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here’s another example of small differences. When you enter someone’s home can you tell if the housepainter’s paint used to paint the sheetrock walls is an acrylic based paint or an oil based paint? Most people can’t tell the difference. When people tell me they can’t see any difference between the four paintings on my living room wall, I point out the differences. The acrylic is a tiny bit shinier than the others. The oil is a tiny bit shinier in a different way. The gouache is a tiny bit less shiny. This they can see when it is pointed out to them. These are very small differences. When the mind gets involved in making very small distinctions between things one’s knowledge increases. But, when very small distinctions become overly important to us, then something greater than knowledge is lost. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, there are many ways to say the same thing. Each ear will hear what it needs to hear. My point in the last post is that differences in the mind help us to grasp things, to communicate things, and to learn and grow as members of a society, but when too much importance is placed on those differences we sacrifice a greater understanding. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 212 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I think you need a change in medication! You are starting to write some strange stuff | ||
George Unregistered guest |
This morning while putting on my shoes, I looked up and saw something that reminded me of the debate that has been part of the discussion recently on two or three threads (most recently on this thread). Much has been said about how acrylics are “different” from traditional watercolor paints. On the wall in front of me were four paintings I did with four different paints. I did these paintings over a period of years as I experimented with different types of paints. One painting was done with oil paint (unvarnished). One painting was done with acrylic paint. One painting was done with gouache paint. And, one painting was done with traditional watercolor paint. All the paints were applied thinly. I hung the four as a grouping many years ago because the subject matter is the same. Each is a plein air painting of a farm house or barn on the road I live on. To help make it look like a group of paintings of similar subjects I framed them all in the traditional watercolor style (matted and under glass). Whenever a visitor to my house has noticed this grouping of paintings I tell them each was done in a different type of paint; one in oil, one in acrylic, one on gouache and one in watercolor. I then ask if they can identify the type of paint used in each. No one has ever been able to identify any of the correct paints, not even the oil painting. I think everyone would agree (including me) that acrylic paints are different from traditional watercolor paints. As I understand the argument offered by many on this page, the idea is to celebrate the difference. But, if one of my toenails grows under the skin more than the other toenails on the same foot, should I celebrate its difference? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 182 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatercolor, Now there is "modern" art (at least in style) that I can really appreciate! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George: "But, if it happens, I’m fine with it." I think this makes me understand a lot about why my opinion differs so sharply on this from yours George, This says a lot. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Fabulous color! Terrific spontaneity! YUPO is a very difficult surface to work on (the most difficult there is). You make it look easy. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 189 Registered: 10-2006 |
 Experimenting with Yupo sample from Cheap Joe's. Comments? I love the way the colors mix and the flow. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 168 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I don't like the feeling that we might be at risk of developing a mutual admiration society, but I do like your post, and I do like your spirit! At the same time, I do understand the concern for setting some kind of boundaries that establish an identity for watercolors. Setting boundaries is a tricky enterprise -- you want to walk the line between being unnecessarily restrictive, and being so permissive that identity is lost. In this enterprise of boundary setting, I personally am not as much concerned with the surface upon which watercolors are painted as I am with sticking with watercolor as commonly understood, as distinct from other watermedia, such as acrylics. Gouche, though often opaque in application, walks up to the line I would draw, but does not step over. That having been said, I do understand the concern some watercolorists may have that the painting surface may dramatically alter the appearance of the painting. I hope that is the concern, and not the fact that an impervious painting surface makes corrections easy. Just my opinion, obviously. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Is the future of watercolor dead? Will the membership of the watercolor societies end up with a majority of acrylic painters? I don’t think so. But, if it happens, I’m fine with it. I’ll still be painting in traditional watercolor. And, that’s all I really care about. What will I do if the manufactures stop making watercolor because I’m the only one still using it? I’ll make my own! I have the formula! If anyone else wants it, I’ll be happy to share it. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Victory A--acrylics can be painted with transparency so let them in. Victory B--these acrylics don;t look exactly transparent but neither do a couple of these thickly painted watercolors. Let them in. Victory C--These acrylics are painted very thickly but since are already acceptable, we can't very well deny these opaque ones entrance into the show. Victory D-- This painting, though highly textured with modeling paste, though thick with abstract acrylic globs, though part if it is dense collage--should be in the watercolor shows--we have encouraged acrylic use in the past so let it in--we can't be unkind--and it is a great painting! If one is part of such a watercolor group, as I am, and if one sees transparent watercolor sidelined as I have, only them will you see the insidious nature of this slippery slope to the future of watercolor. Let the acrylic artists go to the general painting groups where they belong. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 185 Registered: 10-2006 |
I support what is accepted as watercolor (not acrylic, waterbased oil, colored pencil, ink, gouche,) on accepted watercolor mediums. If we are talking about evolving that should include yupo and watercolor canvas, before it includes pigments that are non-traditional. Disclaimer: Every statement or opinion I give is based information I am familiar with at the time--and subject to change. Bonnie | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I think everyone knows my position on this. Hairsplitting is wasted energy. If synthetic papers are not acceptable then what about the papers made from both synthetic and natural materials like Aquarius II? Or what about watercolor panels that include synthetic materials like Claybord? Or what about coating natural paper with liquid synthetic binder as many watercolor artists do? When watercolor societies begin to ban watercolor paintings that are done in different techniques from the majority techniques, or in different materials from the majority materials, or in different styles from the majority styles, what is really lost is the potential for greater creativity and self expression. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 275 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm okay with yupo. I'm okay with watercolor canvas as long as it's matted and framed the same as the other pieces in the show. My thinking with watercolor canvas is that it's just a different kind cotton. My thinking with still requiring the traditional matting and framing is that if you allow acrylic *and* you allow canvas without glass or plexi, then you can get entries that have absolutely nothing in common with watercolor in the traditional sense; many of the pieces would probably be indistinguishable from oil. I consider most gesso the same as acrylic. If you allow acrylic, then gessoed surfaces should be okay too. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I want to add that I am a purist and would like to see watercolor shows limited to transparent watercolors (as opposed to gouache and acrylic) on paper -- period. Anything else and eventually the organization gets overrun by the other media pretending to watercolor. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I am more concerned about the use of watercolor paint. That to me is sacrosanct. Yes, the surfaces you mentioned should be allowed in watercolor shows, otherwise you have the absurd situation of allowing opaque acrylic collage on paper but not transparent watercolor on canvas in a watercolor show! The problem arises when the acrylic painters (the ones who do not use it as transparently as watercolors---I don't want to get into hairsplitting def. of opaque) demand to use canvas. Then it ceases to be a watercolor show. However, I contend it ceases to be a watercolor show if acrylics are allowed at all--but hey--that's just me. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 222 Registered: 8-2006 |
Should YUPO, watercolor canvas, and gessoed paper be allowed in watercolor shows? This has probably been discussed before in other threads but lets hear some new opinions. I’ve seen wonderful work done on these surfaces but don’t see how they can fairly compete in traditional shows. In water media shows, yes, but in real watercolor shows, no. They’re a different animals. MHO |
