|
|
Post by commandax on Jan 23, 2009 16:31:29 GMT -8
This Wall Street Journal article reminded me of Hung's comment that his Deth P. Sun pieces from a few years ago seem to be fading. "Asking the Artist for a Do-Over" online.wsj.com/article/SB123259183958404999.htmlWith all the found substrates that are being used these days – cardboard, plywood, etc. – I expect there will be a lot more talk about this in this neck of the art woods eventually. Of course, some artists probably consider the inevitable dilapidation and transformation of age as part of an artistic process the work is engaged in. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Bytor on Jan 24, 2009 15:46:27 GMT -8
ya know I have had the same thought about some pieces I have seen. I thought to myself that they wouldn't hold up under the test of time for different reasons. I know that the medium that I use, oils, there is a definite way you have to layer on the paint for it to bond and dry correctly or over time it will crack. I often wonder if in the moment of creativity an artist might loose the logical thinking that might be needed to realize that maybe they should or shouldn't create a certain way because it might night hold up, or it might fade or crack. I know that I have to constantly remind myself of things like this because I also get caught up in the "moment" of creating. Hard to explain and I hope you guys can understand what I am trying to say ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 27, 2009 15:08:29 GMT -8
I kind of like the idea of work fading over time. I also really like the look of oil paint cracking over time, but this could just be me.
I think its nice that the work changes over time. I know its natural to want to save the work and make sure it lasts forever. But I have also talked to a few art historians, my favorite professor being one, that thought that the whole idea of needing to care for, protect and restore works adding to the love and appreciation one might have. Its very nurturing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jun 3, 2009 20:33:54 GMT -8
So is it pretty accepted that works on cardboard are not archival?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcusslo on Jun 3, 2009 21:48:46 GMT -8
yup. cardboard, newspaper, rubber etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jun 4, 2009 5:18:20 GMT -8
there is a Toulouse Lautrec painting on cardboard at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY that is in relatively good shape, . . .not sure how much work the restorers had to do to it (probably not much)
I suspect the materials used to make cardboard in 19th century France were different than today.
As for Leslie's comment about the application of oil paint and its archival quality, . . .the painting ground is important as well. People who used those cheap Fredrix stretched canvas or canvas boards may have trouble in a few years depending on how the paintings are stored, handled, etc, . . . temperature, humidity, fits of rage, . . . all important factors to be considered.
Much of the cracking we see in paintings from centuries ago was caused by storage and mishandling, . . .
always try and stretch your own canvas if you can, . . . or work on gessoed panel, . . .with a high quality gesso.
I'm thinking your paintn application is not really impasto-like, so you probably won't have too many issues(though I've never seen one of yours in person)
In the case of J W Waterhouse, . . .he experimented a lot with the new paint mediums and colors available at the time and some of them proved to be unstable(see Lady of Shallot) lots of cracks
In the case of Bougereau (a contemporary ), you can visit the Forest Lawn Cemetery Musuem in Los Angeles(I think it's on Los Feliz) his painting, "The Song of the Angels" is there and is in pretty decent condition(he used time-tested methods of painting) there is some cracking, but that is more likely from handling issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jun 4, 2009 5:31:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by binnorie on Jun 6, 2009 23:25:27 GMT -8
. . . temperature, humidity, fits of rage, . . . all important factors to be considered. Haha! Fantastic sense of humor, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by muschelschubser on Jun 7, 2009 5:53:12 GMT -8
since I'm a noob to fine art I thought I ask the pros about an issue which is bothering me for a couple of months now. I purchased 2 canvas pieces by the same artist one smaller, one bigger piece. Got the smaller one earlier and took it to a frame shop for framing consideration. The guy at the shop, in his sixties and long in the business, looked at the canvas stretched on the frame and immediately suggested to take off the canvas and re-stretch the canvas on a special (?) stretch frame. He said the one used would start to distort and maybe damage the canvas... Any suggestions from you guys are highly appreciated!  |
|
|
|
Post by morticide on Jul 13, 2009 14:36:05 GMT -8
Any suggestions from you guys are highly appreciated! Solid wood expands and shrinks based on humidity and humility and mitered corners are the worst joints possible for dealing with that. They with time can distort, warp or even plunge their sharp 45 degree edges straight through the canvas. I can't really judge the dimensions of the piece, but I think you are fine with what you have, and framers are well known to scare people into buying the most expensive useless crap. On another note I emailed Tom Learner who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal item that Amanda linked to. He is a modern paint specialist and wrote the book "Modern Paint Uncovered" www.amazon.com/Uncovered-Conservation-Institute-Symposium-Proceedings/dp/089236906XI will let you know if he gets back to me on the topic of what artists should and shouldn't be doing to conserve their paintings. |
|
