Why not use cheap acrylics?

[old_hobbyist]

I just returned from a demonstration by a well-known regional acrylic painter whose works sell for upper three to lower four figures. He said he just closed a one-man show in which he sold 8 of his 12 paintings. He told us that he buys DecoArt Americana acrylic paints from a local craft store at a dollar for a 2 oz jar. His colors are "chocolate" and "sand" and "wicker". He even uses the Americana white gesso to blend with his colors. He said that he typically spends about a dime in paint for each 16 x 20 painting. He said that he is entirely happy with these ultracheap paints. When I asked him what his clients say about the quality of his paints, he said that his clients love his subject matter (vegetables, fruit, other still life) and do not seem to care what paint he uses. Any comments?

[connievanwinssen]

I also use cheap paints. A painting 40x40" I sell for 1350 euros, it costs me about 15 euro on the canvas and about 1 euro on paint.
No one has ever asked me about canvas or paint and I have sold far more then 100 paintings so I can relate to this artist:)

[Katwyld]

Myself, I worry about how the color will hold up longterm (yes, I know we don't necessarily know how artist acrylics will hold up either)... but, really, I like the feel of the thicker golden paint. I have used DecoArt paints for ceramic painting and craft type painting stuff... it's very thin, thinner than my Goldens. It would likely be fine if I were used to the Golden fluids, but I'm not.

It's really a 'to each their own' in my mind that way. Yes, if someone wants to use the cheaper paints and sell them, that's great! I'll stick with my Goldens... I like the way they feel under the brush (and am looking to try the Interactives someday, too).

[ArtistPete]

I use bottled acrylics exclusively. AppleBarrel, Folkart, Americana, etc. and like them a lot. I use them on many different surfaces besides canvas and masonite and never had a problem. No negatives at all to say about them--I even thin 'em out and use them in my airbrushes.

I started a thread a few wks ago on bottled acylics::thumbsup:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=579368

[micahmullen]

I strongly discourage the use of cheap acrylics. The advantages of using an artist grade acrylic are significant. The three biggest reasons off the top of my head are 1. Much higher pigment concentration 2. Stronger degrees of lightfastness 3. Less color shift from wet to dry

I do not even the like the use of cheap acrylics for practice. The working qualities of an artist grade acrylic provide a better overall working experience and encourage more experimentation because they are just more versatile.

I'm not trying to be naive to the economic factors of student vs. artists grade colors. But I firmly believe a better product will be produced by using better materials and long term the financial factors even out.

Micah

[ArtistPete]

The working qualities of an artist grade acrylic provide a better overall working experience and encourage more experimentation because they are just more versatile.

I disagree. I've used both and I prefer the overall working experience using the bottled acrylics.

I think it's entirely up to the artist. I can't think of any advantage that a toothpaste-type acrylic would have over a liquid-type--certainly not more versatile. Maybe doing knife paintings would be a tube acrylic advantage--beyond that, I can't see any more advantages.


But I firmly believe a better product will be produced by using better materials and long term the financial factors even out.


Yes, if you believe tube acylics are "better". I don't. I'll take bluegill fillets over sturgeon caviar anyday.:)

[AndyMcC]

I use W&N Artists Acrylic, I mainly use these because I like the texture of them but the British art forger John Myatt fooled the art world using household paint e.g. matt/silk emulsion. He does use System 3 paints but says that he uses the primaries plus white & black in emulsion paint as you can buy litres of paint for the price of a tube of "proper" acrylic. His paintings sell for thousands and nobody seems to mind, in fact many people are amazed by what can be done with fairly cheap paint...oh and he uses KY jelly as extender for his colours, again because it's so cheap :D

[Foxyheart2002]

I use whatever the stores sell that I need at the moment, Liquitex Basics/Heavy Body, Academy, Galleria, if they have the colors I want, that is what I buy. You know, my paintings will outlive me no matter what I use. If they fade or peel, it will probably be because of how they store/display them (humidity, sunlight) so I am not worried about it. One of my paintings was done over 42 years ago when I was a teen and it was done on cardboard (not the corrugated kind) with 'cheap' paint and it still looks fresh and has not peeled or faded.

[Mz_Sketch_Pad]

i too know a well known artist who uses "cheapies" and i asked him about it and he said acrylics are tough and durable
and his stuff sells
i use some cheap,some good
maybe the varnish it
i dunno
what about this people doing the coffee art??/

[ourcassidy!]

I can't vouch for the Apple Barrel because I don't use it...I find it much too thin for my liking...however I have some decorative art works that I have used DecoAmericana and Delta as well as folk Art paints on. All these are well over 15 years old and many are outside....exposed to wind, sun, rain etc...I have had no trouble at all with fading or lightfastness.


If you check out this link you will be able to see the success others have had with this as well...

http://www.deanneart.com/shopping/Shop_img/Summer%20Magnolia.jpg?id=127

Pam

[MrsG_SoCal]

I like thinner paints (Liquitex Soft Body) so using the "craft" acrylics is a smoother transition. And I'll admit to using it these days since I really don't have the money to spend on the good stuff. It is all a matter of preference and to each their own.

[Nilesh]

I just returned from a demonstration by a well-known regional acrylic painter whose works sell for upper three to lower four figures. He said he just closed a one-man show in which he sold 8 of his 12 paintings. He told us that he buys DecoArt Americana acrylic paints from a local craft store at a dollar for a 2 oz jar. His colors are "chocolate" and "sand" and "wicker". He even uses the Americana white gesso to blend with his colors. He said that he typically spends about a dime in paint for each 16 x 20 painting. He said that he is entirely happy with these ultracheap paints. When I asked him what his clients say about the quality of his paints, he said that his clients love his subject matter (vegetables, fruit, other still life) and do not seem to care what paint he uses. Any comments?
If you feel it is appropriate to post something [a painting(s) or a link(s)], there are people here who would probably be interested in seeing his paintings.

Some of the pigments used in the craft paints are not very lightfast.

Some artists don't care, others do. It seems to me that an artist is not doing buyers any favors by using non-lightfast paints.

***
Cost and quality do not always correlate. Some less expensive paints are of high quality. Nova Colors come to mind. On a per-ounce basis, they are less expensive than many of the craft paints.

Does this artist you mentioned care whether the colors and the paint films are archival?

Some people just have a tendency to go cheap.

[skyeagle]

IMHO I believe there's a lot of marketing hype in "only use quality paints." That's what those making huge profits toot over and over. I too, have used the craft bottle paints on outdoor items and they are good as the day they were painted. Look at the art sales, often "50% off the list price." Right there tells me there's a humungus mark up on these products. You can purchase gallons of paint for what it'd cost to buy a gallon's worth of even the bottled craft paints. It's all a gimmick, in my books. Can anyone prove to me that cheaper paints won't hold up? Now I will say, there are some student grade paints that have very little body or pigment. Use some of those whites, and you'll just water down the tube color with it before you get much lower on the gray scale. Try them. If they are faulty, don't buy them again. If they work, be delighted! So, as with anything else, there just is no such thing as "One Size Fit All." Use what you like and believe in, but don't belittle those who have success with something you frown on. That's not directed to any comment here, just to the subject in the art world as a whole. Of course, this is all just MHO! Doris

[laudesan]

I use both.

My only art teacher in acrylics, back in 1980, used only Chromacryl student grade paints (http://www.chromaonline.com/chroma/products/chromacryl/). I have a few of his paintings, and they are as fresh, and bright as the day he painted them nearly 30 years ago.

Some student paints, look like they are made with cornflour and water, they are glutinous, and very little pigment. You would of course stay away from them.

I use M.Graham and Mont Marte paints. (http://www.artshedbrisbane.com.au/Acrylic-Paint/View-all-products.html) I use the Mont Marte silver series. I have a few chromacyl too.

I have never had a complaint in all these years about the quality of my work, or the quality of the paint I use.

[susme48]

And then there are paints like Soho...artist grade....99¢ a tube. Beautiful colors, seem to be easy to work with....and so far I am quite enjoying them. And I can play more...because the "price is right" :o

[dances_with_oils]

Hmmm, this debate will go on forever as long as anyone thinks they can justify the use of cheaper paint (and by cheaper I mean less pigment, more filler, less binders, more water) because some well known artist has done so or the painting that they did in high school is still doing great.

I think in my own humble opinion that if an artist wants to use cheap paints and sell as if they were using luxury paints then they are doing themselves a disservice in maintaining a decent reputation within the art conservation and restoration fields. It's one thing to assume that your high school art is doing great but it's another thing to actually see and understand what happens to paint on the microscopic level. Acrylic regardless of quality is going to be a huge dust attraction and the way the properties of it behave, can lead to the paint actually surrounding the dust molecule and making it near impossible to clean it.

Add in mould, brittleness, freezing, sticking, melting and sun damage and if you have used paints that contain cheap and nasty ingredients, you've got yourself a conservation and restoration nightmare.

Of course I have pieces that I painted in school, using student grade paints and yes, to the naked eye they still appear ok. But if I were to take those pieces to be cleaned, chances are that they would present so many issues that the price of the cleaning would triple in price.

Now, ask yourself this...as an artist do you think it's worth it to your reputation to place the burden of conservation of your pieces onto the buyer because you used cheap paint? How do you think your reputation would fare if your work all of a sudden became known to be expensive to clean and conserve?

http://www.si.edu/MCI/english/learn_more/taking_care/acrylic_paintings.html
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/04autumn/jablonski.htm

[Idlewilde]

I agree with you, dances with oils. No point spending all that time on a painting and not using good stuff. If it fails you are not doing buyers any favours and your reputation suffers.
Use the best you can afford and DO your best! The only person you are fooling is yourself if you don't.
Cheers, Ian Wildey.

[ArtistPete]

Darn, I wish they would charge more for those bottled acrylics...........then some people would deem them worthy to use.

My point is that some choose to use liquid acrylics--price hasn't got diddly to do w/ it.

[Foxyheart2002]

I paint because it is fun. I will never be a highly paid artist. I am already 60 years old. My work is western and there is not very much demand for it. I use what I can afford to continue doing what I like to do. I have no aspirations of ever having my works to be likened to Rembrandt or anyone else. Those who want the very best archival paints because they want their works to last hundreds of years is beyond me. Mine fetch low hundred$. In my lifetime they will never fetch thou$ands. I guess to those who value their works more than mine, I say go for it. In a hundred years from now, we won't be around to even care. And even then, it will all be up to how the works are treated once they are sold the first time, not so much how we got the paint on the canvas/board/linen. I feel the most we really have to worry about is the preparation of the surface to paint upon. How many of our best works will end up in someone's attic anyway?

[TCharlie]

The problem I have with using cheap materials is that somebody is paying good money for the art. When your painting are selling in high 3 figures and upward there is no excuse to not give the client a piece of art that will last. It's not that expensive to use good materials. I collect art by other artists myself and I don't care how good you are, I will not pay good money for something that's going to fade or yellow.

[Georgi]

To be honest, I use cheap paints because I can't afford the expensive ones. I guess if I could afford it, I would buy the more expensive paints, but the fact and reality of the matter is, I can't!

Cheers,
Georgi :cat:

[laudesan]

The problem I have with using cheap materials is that somebody is paying good money for the art. The paintings I use the mont marte paint on, and they call it professional grade paint) is the paitnings I paint for the Creative Market. The largest is 12"x16" and the prices are not too high.

For my larger works, the ones priced in the 3 and 4 figure market,are of course painted with my M.Graham paints. Which I might add are not that more expensive, but are definitely artist grade. They are fast becoming the world leader in quality for money.

[laudesan]

To be honest, I use cheap paints because I can't afford the expensive ones. I guess if I could afford it, I would buy the more expensive paints, but the fact and reality of the matter is, I can't!

Cheers,
Georgi :cat:.....and don't feel bad about it. You paint with what you can afford, and what you feel comfortable with. :heart:

[Foxyheart2002]

This reminds me of a jewelry blog I read today. It has to do with pricing jewelry for sale. They made the point about Consumers Reports and toasters. The best working toaster was only $20, but the best seller was $200. People bought it for the looks and the price thinking they were getting a good toaster when, in fact, the cheaper one was the better one. So, I guess unless you take the time to test the paints yourself for lightfastness and 'quality' you have to go by what others say. And most of the hype is done by the manufacturers of the paints. Anyone here who uses the 'better' paints....whose report are you using saying they are actually 'better'? How do you know they will not fade after 50 years? Will not peel? Or are you going by anecdotal reports or by the mfr's reports? If you use them because you actually like the feel, flow, etc., then more power to you. But if you are using them only because so and so said they are better, how can you really be sure? Use what you can afford, what helps you create. Have fun painting.

[idylbrush]

Since you didn't publish the name of the artist....is there some a sense of discomfort with the whole thing?

I do feel it a personal, ethical choice.

Since I sell my work, I feel I owe it to the client to use the best possible materials I can afford.

I also buy artwork and research the materials used as best as I can. I want to buy artwork that is going to give me the best quality. Yes, there are certain very good artists I won't buy because the materials used, in my humble opinion, don't deserve my hard earned monies. I work to hard and long to foolishly spend it on well executed, questionable quality work. I look at the entire package, not just the artist or the materials.

I've seen beautiful works done on corrugated cardboard with house paints, doesn't mean I am going to buy it, no matter how well it is executed. I won't throw good money after bad.

[Einion]

Why not use cheap acrylics?
Because you don't want to.
Because it's not the right consistency to do what you want.
Because they don't have sufficient covering power.
Because they might not be as permanent as the paint should be for the kind of work you produce.

Why use cheap acylics?
Because you want to.
Because you like how they paint.
Because you like how they look when dry.
Because lightfastness/permanence is not an issue for you.

The key issue here I think is clearly not what the artist is comfortable using in terms of how it paints, it's in whether they are happy with the lightfastness and permanence of the paint. There's no rule that says they have to be - the Art Police won't arrest you if you don't care - but I think with someone who sells fine-art painting they should at least be honest with themselves about this being an important consideration overall; with work in this area some assurance of quality and permanence of materials could be expected.

Einion

[Einion]

When I asked him what his clients say about the quality of his paints, he said that his clients love his subject matter (vegetables, fruit, other still life) and do not seem to care what paint he uses. Any comments?
I would bet that they are mostly unaware, but even if they are the fact that they are not concerned is not a key point.

For example, labels on a gallery wall generally the title, the dimensions maybe, the medium and the price. As far as medium goes I doubt they ever go into any more detail than just saying "acrylic", "oil", "watercolour" or whatever, yes? In other words, all those buyers of oil paintings are making some assumption about the quality of the medium, when it could be done with something as cheap as Van Gogh or something as pricey as Old Holland (or a bit of both). They can't know and aren't generally in a position to make an informed decision either way.

And in terms of what a selling painter does, popular ones in particular, that is not any warranty that doing the same is reliable, safe or long-lasting - assume for example he/she didn't varnish their acrylic paintings, it's not any assurance that this is a safe practice.


The working qualities of an artist grade acrylic provide a better overall working experience and encourage more experimentation because they are just more versatile.
I disagree. I've used both and I prefer the overall working experience using the bottled acrylics.
The important part there I think was that artists' acrylics are more versatile; I don't think this is a matter of opinion - assuming we're talking about tube acrylics versus craft acrylics, the former being thicker can be used at that thickness and all the way down to heavily thinned. With fluid paint you can't easily go in the opposite direction.

In terms of pigmentation, there's simply no way to go from paint with less pigment and more water and filler to the equivalent of better pigmentation. And well-pigmented paint can do things you simply cannot do with weaker paint (e.g. cover with a single thin application).

And in terms of pigments themselves, if there are no cadmiums then the best pigments for yellow, orange and red are absent; best here being in terms chroma and opacity.

I think it's entirely up to the artist. I can't think of any advantage that a toothpaste-type acrylic would have over a liquid-type--certainly not more versatile.
It is entirely up to each person what to use (of course) but there's no denying that it is much more difficult to get to anything more bodied starting with liquid paint, compared to the reverse. And apart from the difficulty/hassle of doing this it doesn't equate with a paint made that way to begin with in certain key respects.

Maybe doing knife paintings would be a tube acrylic advantage--beyond that, I can't see any more advantages.
Other than what I've already mentioned - visible 3D brushmarks? This is important to some painters.

Back to what you use, is lightfastness an issue for you? If it is, are you happy that the paints you use are lightfast enough, i.e. that they are the equivalent of good artists' acrylics in that respect?


...the British art forger John Myatt fooled the art world using household paint e.g. matt/silk emulsion.
...in fact many people are amazed by what can be done with fairly cheap paint...oh and he uses KY jelly as extender for his colours, again because it's so cheap :D
Very important this; I've brought it up before with regard to the supposed unique appearance of oil paints :)


Some of the pigments used in the craft paints are not very lightfast.

Some artists don't care, others do. It seems to me that an artist is not doing buyers any favors by using non-lightfast paints.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/20-Aug-2003/3842-thumbsup.gif


IMHO I believe there's a lot of marketing hype in "only use quality paints."
There is indeed. But that alone doesn't say anything about the equivalency or not of artists' acrylics and craft acrylics.

Can anyone prove to me that cheaper paints won't hold up?
You can do this for yourself by doing your own lightfastness tests, this will show that certain paints are not the match of others in that regard.

Einion

[dances_with_oils]

Pete, I think it's not about how much you actually pay for the paint or in fact, what viscosity it has. I buy all my paint when it goes on sale or buy it using my business account which gives me a 25% discount. It's about the quality of the paint and what it contains as fillers, binders, pigment and its overall water content. The more water, and fillers the less likely the paint will have the ability to not cause a problem to the buyer as it ages. How fast that material breaks down will also depend on what else was used with it as well as how the piece is displayed and in what conditions. I always make it a point to ask my patrons where they think the painting might be displayed and what conditions it will be in. I also ask if it's likely to be moved to a new location over a period of time. Thick paint or liquid paint is a matter of artist choice, but the ingredients/chemical compounds of that paint will make a world of difference in the longer run as well as how it behaves with something as simple as a house move in the winter.

Ever had a piece of yours involved in a fire or been trashed by vandals? Just imagine for a moment that one of the above has occurred and your work is now being examined by a conservationist/restorer. Add in the insurance adjuster and their art experts who also examine the work. Your patron's insurance will covering what the adjuster and the conservationist finds and the first point will be the materials used. You may, by using cheap paint, cost your patron the replacement value of the work. They may only get a small percentage of what they paid you for it. Try to imagine that phone call. (and as an aside, most insurance companies once they give the patron a replacement piece or replacement costs - the insurance company then owns the damaged works and is in all likelihood going to sell it in a discounted sale. Your reputation may hang on that sale).

Sue, I can appreciate what you are saying but I do research my materials not with the manufacturers but with the conservationists and restorers. I tend to trust them with their opinions of certain paints and mediums. I also tend to stay away from products and supports that have caused a conservationist problems. I do care what happens to my work once I'm long gone because my estate will have an interest in those works. I'm looking to the future where if the current case before the courts comes to fruition, artists and their estates will be receiving royalties from their works when they are resold. I want my work to go up in value not down because the conservation of it is problematic.

I understand where you are coming from with regard to picking a paint because of price points. It really isn't a good idea to judge a paint on that alone. I tend to judge my paints on what is in the tube as far as ingredients are concerned. There are just some chemicals and combinations of those chemicals that are not a good idea to use if you want to not have a problem later on. I tend to trust the chemical analysis of the paint and the interactions of mediums used. Nothing is going to convince me that using hair gel as a retarder is a good idea, the chemical interaction is simply not something that will last.

Ask a conservationists/restorer what drives them nuts when they have to clean a painting that has been hanging in a smoker's home or a work that got damaged in a move or was shipped in extreme temperatures to the new owner and the paint stuck to the shipping material or cracked. Those are all problems that can occur not in a hundred years but in a short period of time while you are still selling your work. That's what I try to think about. I firmly believe that as an artist, you should know more about your paint and mediums than what is simply on the label. Knowing how far you can push the limits of the paint and mediums is a valuable knowledge as an artist. If you couple that with the knowledge of what your paint choice is going to do over any period of time and in any condition, you are helping your patrons.

Georgi, there is no need to apologise for what kind of paint you use as long as you are upfront to your patrons as to what paint you use. I've bought lots of work from students but I've bought it knowing that they used lower grade paints and have set aside some funds to deal with them if they need work. What I have a problem with is an artist who doesn't set out what paint and mediums they used and technically then have past the conservation costs onto the buyer without the buyer realizing it or agreeing to it. We have a fabulous artist here in town, they do amazing work but their prints of their work are all done on non-archival paper from an office supply store and framed in dollar store mats and frames. They sell these pieces for a modest amount but if they actually did the prints on archival paper and used archival matting, they could sell it for more - and their patrons would be happy to pay for it. However, at least they are upfront about what material they use and their patrons accept that.

Patrons are not as naive about their collections as an artist would like to think they are and they do pick up on name brands of paints and mediums and recognize the better paints/products. If any of my pieces get stowed in an attic then at least what I'd like to achieve is when they are found by the younger generation and taken to a restorer - they aren't causing the restorer or the new found owners an expensive proposition.

[ourcassidy!]

Dances with oils...You mentioned to Georgi that there is no need to apologise for kind of paint as long as you are upfront with patrons as to paint used....Are you saying that when you offer a painting you actually list the brand/kind of paints on the info card that is by the painting?

I have never seen that done...As for cleaning because of conditions in the buyers home..smoking etc...I kind of think that is their responsibility...I would never choose materials that I did not think would hold up...and if ask would certainly tell the brand of paints I used...however I have never listed the brand.

I would be willing to bet the majority of folks here on wet canvas have no aspirations of having a painting last 100+ years...I am not saying that is a wrong attitude...not at all...just that most are not professional artist...but rather paint for pleasure...and if they sell a painting that's all the better. That's not to say one should not use the best quality of materials they can afford...but again I guess that is in the eye of the painter.

There is room for both sides of this issue and I suspect will be debated for years to come---unless something else comes along to spark new debate. I always think it is interesting to hear others opinions, but as was said in the end I choose materials because of my standards...

Happy painting...Pam

[dances_with_oils]

Pam, I do exactly that. Every painting I sell is accompanied with a Provenance, a high resolution photo of the work for the patron to give to their insurance and a list of the materials used. On the stretcher, I also list the names of the paints and any medium/additives I used as well as what varnish I used. To some it might seem over the top, but at least if the painting gets damaged in transit or gets damaged in a household mishap ( I have quite a funny story about one patron and their 4 year old who decided to add something to the three pieces I did for them - acrylic and maple syrup.. not a good combo.. neither was the mustard, jam or chocolate sauce) the owner can take it in to be restored and there's no guess work on the part of the restorer - they can check it against their own data and research.

I think to assume that discussions of using quality paint and mediums is limited to whether the work will last a hundred years is assuming that the piece that used cheaper paints even made it past the first transit where it got left on the hot tarmac of the airport apron or froze because it was flown in the cargo hold at 36,000 feet or the first... oops left it in the car while I went shopping and the bag has stuck to the paint... cheap or quality paint will cause problems if presented in the wrong conditions but the repair of such a piece will depend on what was used. Something as simple as water damage can cause the paint to swell and potentially distort the surface in which the artist envisioned as part of their work. The more pigmented the paint the less swelling will occur. The higher quality of paint used the less issues will present itself to the restorer because there simply aren't sufficient tests to determines what additive or mediums were used or are contained in the paint.

Add in all the current safety nutters out there that are requiring that everything be labelled and consumers are made aware of content etc and it won't be long before artists will be required to list what they used. The only thing that gives any worth to using cheaper paints is in all likelihood they contain no harmful minerals or substances in the pigment - they are most likely to be all AP labelled.

It's also expensive for an owner to have tests done on their paintings to discover what it was made with. I feel it's important to provide that information when it is current and not down the road when I get a call because one of my paintings got damaged. (I keep records of all material used in my work) It only takes a few minutes to record what paint or medium or additive I used while I'm painting. I've already done a colour study and chart so I can refer to that as well. So far in all the conversations I have had with restorers or conservationists, none of the paints etc I have used has caused a major problem and they appreciate that I have given the info accurately.

[ourcassidy!]

dances with oils...thanks for the info. I will now have to check around because I am curious if that is the case with other artist in our areas. (Near Santa Barbara CA)...As a buyer I would appreciate knowing all that so something to consider. Pam

[aspenman]

You don't use cheap paints or cheap substraights or cheap brushes because they are CHEAP! In this case CHEAP translates to INFERIOR! Do you buy cheap food, cheap oil for your car, cheap clothes etc etc. It is hard enough learning to become a proficient painter without hindering your progress with cheap products. Cheap paints have inferior ingredients, colors that are not bright and bold or color fast. The old saying "if you are going to do something - do it RIGHT" in this case is a very accurate.

[Bill_E]

I guess I am a paint snob. I use the best I can get...even if that means working with a limited palette (which isn't bad anyway).

I paint first for my own enjoyment and relaxation. Sales...when they happen, great, but I don't actually pursue sales all that much.

That said, whether it is understanding composition, color theory, or materials, I want to know as much as I can and develop as an artist. I am always pushing myself.

One of the ways I push my self is that I do use good materials. It is a mindset as much as anything. It makes me think a little more about what I am doing and why. Sure I could throw a little more paint around if I used craft paint and paper, but--speaking only of myself--it would also make me sloppy and unintentional with my work.

Not everyone approaches art the way I do. It is not uncommon for me to spend more time planning painting than actually painting. When I don't it is obvious, at least to me. That doesn't mean my "planned" work is "good," but it does mean that the next piece will probably be a little better than the last.

In the end, the materials I use have far more to do with an ethos than the pocket book.


As an aside, I have had to do too many home renos to fix work others have done with cheap materials, or sub-standard workmanship. It seems we live in an age of "good enough," and "it will be some one else's problem." Personally I reject that ethic. While my work may not be as good as someone else's, at least I know that it is the best I could produce. That I can live with.

As another aside, some of the best photographic work was done with old cameras and expensive plates--people like Ansel Adams. It has been argued that the technology available to people like Adams forced them to be highly intentional and thoughtful in their work...and it shows. Digital photography, however allows us to shoot hundreds of photos with the hope that one will be good. It seems that intentional has given way to accidental. Looking at my own photographic work I know I have fallen into that. The photographers are still highly intentional and thoughtful, not relying on "happy accidents"...they can't risk their reputations on that. How does that apply to what we do with paint? I'll let you decide.

By the way, it is true that the best materials will never make up for what an artist is not. Even poor materials in a masters hands can yield wonderful results. But like a master playing a well aged Stradivarius violin, you can hear the difference quality makes.

PS - There is enough disposable art in department stores, I don't need to create more of it...at least that's how I see it.

So call me a paint snob...I can live with it ;)

[texana6]

I decided early on to use professional quality acrylic paints for my paintings for these reasons: (a) I hated those cheap watercolors that we used in high school that almost convinced me that I could never learn to paint. (b) With their heavier pigment load artist quality acrylics go farther convincing me that in the long run they aren't that much more expensive than the cheaper ones. (c) When I do decide to sell my paintings I will consider it part of my contract with the buyer. My paintings are the best painting I could do with my God-given talents with the best possible materials. It's not worth it to me to save $2-3 in paint on a canvas that I have spent hours painting. I am writing on the stretcher strips the brand names, pigments, and finishes that I used. My family members and future buyers may well be grateful some day that I took that simple step. (d) If viscosity is the issue, there are artist grade acrylics sold in jars, not tubes. (e) And finally I envision the day that problems will arise with the craft acrylics and no one can tell without expensive testing which acrylic paintings were done with craft acrylics, and which were done with artist-grade acrylics. The result will be that buyers will become wary of buying ANY painting in acrylic. Yes, I have budget contraints like everyone else but I buy my supplies from ASW or Jerrysartarama when they are on sale and combine my order with friends to keep shipping costs down. It's cheaper, by far, than drinking at the local bar and a lot more satisfying. Just MHO and eveyone else is entitled to their opinion.

[Artchrispy]

Lightfastness and also the likelihood of colors going fugative are important reasons for using artist grade paints, especially if you are wanting to sell your work. Ever leave a newspaper on the dashboard of your car? The dyes in the ink fade rather quickly. In my house the sealed stain on my wood floor shows discernable fade marks from where the sun casts a rectangle of light thru a window (and that floor has only been in for 4 years!) Someone should do a lightfast test on some of the craft acrylics by masking half a painting and leaving that painting on their vehicle dashboard for a week. I 'd predict a major difference between the masked and exposed sides. Some buyers look at art as an investment and expect it to last for as long as possible. Perhaps as an alternative some might try exterior grade latex house paints. They are made to survive 20 plus years outside in the sun and elements. They are definitely cheaper than artist grade but you would have to buy larger quantities. Ken Auster primes his supports with white exterior house paint before overpainting in oil.
I'm sure uv safe varnishes might help. Einion probably knows a lot about this subject.

[Katwyld]

Someone should do a light fast test on some of the craft acrylics by masking half a painting and leaving that painting on their vehicle dashboard for a week.

Ya know, that might be worth a test. Wouldn't be that hard, really... and I think I've got some canvas panels as well as stretched canvases I'd be willing to donate to such a cause...

If I do this, I'll be sure to take pictures and post them up. Would be interesting to see.

[Artchrispy]

Please do Katwyld! That would be very interesting.
I knew a guy who was testing oil pastel lightfastness between brands by using a sun lamp in a closet, but that would probably be a fire hazard. I once tested linseed oil and found the cheap stuff turned yellow very quickly!
Edited to add:
You can maybe trying masking 1/3 of the painting with tape, varnishing 1/3 of the painting, and then just leaving 1/3 with just straight paint to see if there are differences between the three areas.

[ArtistPete]

Until I experience something negative using liquid acrylics I will continue to use them. My experience with them over the years trumps any negative opinion. Until I witness any cracking, yellowing, fading, etc. or anything negative I'll continue to use them. I'll continue to use my acrylic sealer I buy at Walmart--not through an artsy-fartsy supply store.:)

One of my favorite brushes is an old worn out tattered synthetic with a plastic handle :eek: --no sables or Siberian squirrel brushes for me. Not cuz I can't afford it either. Not an issue. I don't think a $50 brush will improve my paintings--being comfortable with the brush is what's important--same with your choice of paint.

So if you're not interested in pallet knives or 3d brushstrokes, stick with the liquid acrylics. The end result is what should be judged--not how much time or materials/tools used.....in my opinion of course.

[Katwyld]

You can maybe trying masking 1/3 of the painting with tape, varnishing 1/3 of the painting, and then just leaving 1/3 with just straight paint to see if there are differences between the three areas.

Actually, I was thinking quarters... exposing a varnished and unvarnished section to light, and hiding a varnished and unvarnished side.... partially for consistancy, and partially because I'd be too lazy to figure out 1/3. :D

[dim_2007]

I also use cheap paints. A painting 40x40" I sell for 1350 euros, it costs me about 15 euro on the canvas and about 1 euro on paint.:)
I love your pictures and colors!
:clap:

[Einion]

Before we go any further down the road, I do think we should look back at the first post and see what paint is mentioned so we're all on the same page here. This (https://www.ecoupons.com/show_image.php?n=http://image.misterart.com%2Fgrouppix%2F528x352%2F7000%2Fg7385.jpg) and this (http://www.studioarts.co.uk/images/newproducts/liqtxsuperheavy.jpg) are both cheap, but they're by no means the same thing. Let's not tar everything with a low pricetag using a single brush.

Einion

[Nilesh]

Another aspect is the lack of full disclosure. With the craft paints, you usually don't even know what pigments are being used -- they just don't tell you. Bruce MacEvoy and others recommend simply not buying paints that don't provide this information on the label.

And some of the colors are made from mixtures of (unknown) pigments; whereas artist-quality acrylics are often enough made with single pigments, and those pigments are clearly identified on the label.

When mixtures are used (in the higher quality lines of paint), the pigments are specified.

The lack of disclosure is itself a strike against these paints, for many artists at least.

Lightfastness ratings are also usually absent in the craft paints. These ratings are often provided right on the labels in the higher quality lines. The information is made clearly available.

There is something about very the absence of forthrightness in many of these lower quality paints that puts some of us off.

***
Also, properly mixing two or more colors can be more problematic when using unknown pigments and unknown mixtures of pigments -- and when using mixtures of more-lightfast pigments with less-lightfast pigments.

***
I must confess, though, that I bought a large bag of these craft paints recently. They were being sold for ten cents each. Most tubes (or squirt bottles) were full or nearly full. And when I bought the whole lot, they were discounted significantly below the original markdown -- significantly below ten cents each.

However, I would not use them in any artwork that I wanted to last, or that a buyer might want to last.

And I chalk up the purchase to bargainmania -- some people just can't pass up these kinds of bargains.

[ArtistPete]

***
I must confess, though, that I bought a large bag of these craft paints recently.

However, I would not use them in any artwork that I wanted to last, or that a buyer might want to last.

I respect your opinion, but from my actual experience with liquid acrylics I guess I wouldn't make that assumption.

[Nilesh]

I respect your opinion, but from my actual experience with liquid acrylics I guess I wouldn't make that assumption.

You may be correct if the underlying statement is that some of these paints may be lasting.

Please observe, though, that I made no assumption about the absence of longevity. I only said that I would not use them if longevity were important.

This does not assume an absence of longevity, for I am only being cautious -- the decision not to use them is based on the chance that they will not be archival (or will not last as long as I or others would like). In other words, I am not assuming longevity either -- I am assuming an *absence of good evidence of longevity* -- and no proof either way. There may be no proof of inadequate longevity; but there is no proof of adequate longevity (adequate for the purposes stated) either -- nor have I seen anything approaching a proof. I have seen no good evidence.

So until I see better evidence that they (both the colors and the dried acrylic films) are of archival quality (or at least adequate quality), I will treat them as the relative unknowns and unprovens that they are.

With the right paints -- some of the higher quality, artist grade acrylics -- there is sufficiently good evidence of longevity and lightfastness.

***
There is some anecdotal evidence on both sides, so I choose to proceed with caution when it comes to these paints.

Some colors and some brands are probably much more lasting than others. I just don't feel comfortable taking a chance when the specifics are unknown, and when lighfastness of colors -- along with high-quality paint films, and the painting's integrity -- are important to me or to a buyer.

[ArtistPete]

relative unknowns and unprovens that they are.

I agree. I'm going by my own experience. I haven't seen any evidence of yellowing, fading, cracking...anything in 15 y.o. liquid acrylic paintings I've done on many different surfaces. Of course, I use a sealer which probably doesn't hurt.

[mollynix]

I use anything from VERY expensive to cheap..cheap. If I see a colour in the Dollar Store acrylics that I like..I buy it. I mix them with everything. The craft acrylics are especially handy when you require thin paint for a specific application.

[Nilesh]

I agree. I'm going by my own experience. I haven't seen any evidence of yellowing, fading, cracking...anything in 15 y.o. liquid acrylic paintings I've done on many different surfaces. Of course, I use a sealer which probably doesn't hurt.

That's interesting to hear. I had thought of doing the same thing. If I may ask, what is the procedure and what type or types of sealers do you use?

Also, have you been using certain brands of paint? (I would be interested in hearing which brand or brands have been working well.)

It might also be worth highlighting the fact that they are sometimes being used in thin, liquid applications, something like watercolor. In such cases, it might be less important to have a strong film of dried acrylic paint (compared with cases involving painting styles that use thicker layers). And sealing them at the end would tend to add some integrity.

Also, the surface or substrate would play a role.

[oldradagast]

Generally, I recommend that one at least uses paints where you know what is in them. That would typically mean a good student grade or higher. Why? Because if you don't really know what is in a given paint - its pigment information, for example - it can be very hard to use it properly in a painting. With color theory and accurately labeled paints, one can get a good feel for what one is getting in the tube and what one can do with it. With a generic pot of "blue" paint, you don't really know what you're getting. How will it mix? Can it be used for skies/water/etc. without problems? There's no way to tell without spending extra money looking for a cheap substitute for a tube of properly labeled higher-grade paint in a known pigment.

I think it's better to buy fewer tubes of higher quality paints and go with a limited palette vs. buying a lot of tubes of craft-grade paint and hoping that they will behave as expected.

Another point to consider is consistency. With higher quality paints, once you find a pigment that you like, odds are it will stick around in an unchanged form for years, if not a decade or more. If you like Winsor and Newton's Cerulean Blue for your skies, you can probably be sure that you'll like it forever. With craft paint, who knows what you're getting: not only can there be greater variation between different batches of paint, but the manufacturer has no real interest in keeping the paint's performance the same: so long as the "blue" paint is generally blue, the rest (to them) doesn't matter. So, they can end up changing the paint's mixing characteristics and you won't know until you learn the hard way in the middle of a painting.

I understand the cost issue and I'm not saying that one should go out and buy nothing but the top of the line paints, but at least stick with companies that produce "artist grade paint" even if it is student grade, and only buy pigments that you know what is in them so that there is an incentive on the part of the company to keep that pigment the same and if they DO change it, you'll know.

Finally, if cost is a real hurdle, you can look for "hues" of more costly colors, such as Cerulean Blue Hue vs. Cerulean Blue. While the hues are generally not as pure or versatile as the original pigment, they are still made to artist's standards and can thus be trusted to perform consistently, IMHO.

[ArtistPete]

That's interesting to hear. I had thought of doing the same thing. If I may ask, what is the procedure and what type or types of sealers do you use?

Also, have you been using certain brands of paint? (I would be interested in hearing which brand or brands have been working well.)

It might also be worth highlighting the fact that they are sometimes being used in thin, liquid applications, something like watercolor. In such cases, it might be less important to have a strong film of dried acrylic paint (compared with cases involving painting styles that use thicker layers). And sealing them at the end would tend to add some integrity.

Also, the surface or substrate would play a role.

Americana-Decoart, AppleBarrel are some brands I've used. And you're correct-I thin them down and apply similar to watercolor. I layer thin tranparent rather than applying thick opaque. Maybe that's why I haven't had any bad experiences with these paints. I mix many different colors on my pallete to get the appropriate hue.
I've used these paints on masonite, canvas, metal, and feathers. I seal each work with 2 coats of either matte or gloss finish acrylic sealer in an aerosol can.

[Nilesh]

Thanks for the interesting reply.

Maybe when there is a good mix of multiple pigments, the absence of a strong degree of lightfastness in one or two of them is not as noticeable -- it probably wouldn't be as noticeable as it would be if it were just one pigment or two pigments involved....

And some of these paints probably use the same pigments as those used in artists' acrylics -- the 'series 1' pigments in artists' acrylics are inexpensive enough to be used in these other paints as well. So some of the colors are likely to be fine in lightfastness.

I suppose there are tests (basic chemical tests, for example) to determine whether a certain pigment is in a certain paint -- and some of these tests are probably fairly simple to do.

And it would be possible to do one's own lightfastness testing.

Still, it seems worth considering something like Nova Colors, if cost is the main concern. They have a similar consistency, but use known pigments and binders, and have known lightfastness ratings. On the other hand, there may be circumstances in which the craft paints would have their own appeal.

[Foxyheart2002]

OK, I'm looking at my paints here for lightfastness. I buy what color I need, not what brand it is, remember.

W&N Galeria, not cheap, Cad red Hue and Cad Yellow Pale Hue, no lightfastness listed, but says Permanence A. They are "Flow Formula" whatever that means.
Liquitex Basics (cheap cheap cheap) Alizarin Crimson. Lightfastness 1 - ***. In factg all my Basics are Lightfastness 1.
Grumbacher, Academy, not too cheap, Yellow Ochre Light Hue, Lightfastness 1 - Excellent.

So, cheap is not all that bad since it says lightfastness 1 (excellent) on the Basics. You do not have to always go with expensive to get good paint in my opinion.

[Nilesh]

...So, cheap is not all that bad since it says lightfastness 1 (excellent) on the Basics. You do not have to always go with expensive to get good paint in my opinion.
I agree with that.

Quality student paints do exist, and some of them list pigments and lightfastness ratings. There is another category of paints, though -- what might be called 'craft acrylics' -- and they are rather different. They rarely list pigments or lightfastness, and it seems a bit up in the air just what you are getting. Some are better than others (both in terms of pigments and lightfastness, and in terms of fillers and binders and paint film quality).

[*dee*]

I haven't tried any of the upper-most price range paints.

But I started out at the bottom. My first experience with a better grade of paint was when I needed more white (Liquitex Basic). I decided then that as I needed to replace a color I would "up-grade". I really like their heavy bodied paints. I like the way it feels, covers & looks. Even though I almost always "paint thin", I like the heavier bodied paints...a little bit goes a loooong way.


There isn't much choice in brands of paints locally (and I'm NOT even talking about my town...or county :lol:). If I could buy upper-most price range paints locally, I would be trying them.

I haven't sold many paintings, but I'm not doing this for the profit. I'm doing it because I enjoy it...so profit isn't even a consideration to me. But I do want to do the best job I can with them.

But, I do have three grandchildren who love what I do. The paintings I give away are given to people I care about. Maybe they WILL all end up in an attic somewhere. But maybe someday they will be dragged back down out of that attic and hung. I'd like them to look good. :smug: Or at least be salvageable. :lol:

So even though I have used the cheaper alternatives, I wouldn't again...unless I had to. But I don't think I'm "snobby" about it. I just think that, in the long run, that I'm getting more for my money now that I've "up-graded" a bit.

[ourcassidy!]

Matthew your point about consistency is well taken. However I must disagree with your statment that said :

"With craft paint, who knows what you're getting: not only can there be greater variation between different batches of paint, but the manufacturer has no real interest in keeping the paint's performance the same: so long as the "blue" paint is generally blue, the rest (to them) doesn't matter. So, they can end up changing the paint's mixing characteristics and you won't know until you learn the hard way in the middle of a painting."[/I]

I believe the manufacturer has great interest in keeping the paints performance the same! I also disagree that somehow because we are talking craft paints here the manufacturers think blue no matter what form is blue. You seem to imply that because it is "Craft" the manufacturers lack knowledge and education about such things! I hardly think that ths case. The artist, painter, crafters most often are well educated on the subject as well and certainly demands consistency in the product they use just as the fine artist does. Do all...of course not...but then again neither do all "fine" artist...

I do agree that lightfast is a major issue no matter the product, acrylics, oils, watercolor etc...and I agree that I want my work to last...I am like others here in that I use the paint that seems to work either in color or consistency/texture for the project I am doing.

Like most things in life there is room for more than one way to do things I guess.

Pam

[laudesan]

I agree with that.

Quality student paints do exist, and some of them list pigments and lightfastness ratings. .Yes, they do, and Chromacryl (http://www.chromaonline.com/chroma/products/chromacryl/) is one of them, so is Mont Marte Silver Series (http://www.montmarte.net/). These are the only two I use besides my beloved M.Grahams.

[ArtistPete]

Matthew your point about consistency is well taken. However I must disagree with your statment that said :

"With craft paint, who knows what you're getting: not only can there be greater variation between different batches of paint, but the manufacturer has no real interest in keeping the paint's performance the same: so long as the "blue" paint is generally blue, the rest (to them) doesn't matter. So, they can end up changing the paint's mixing characteristics and you won't know until you learn the hard way in the middle of a painting."[/i]

I believe the manufacturer has great interest in keeping the paints performance the same! I also disagree that somehow because we are talking craft paints here the manufacturers think blue no matter what form is blue. You seem to imply that because it is "Craft" the manufacturers lack knowledge and education about such things! I hardly think that ths case. The artist, painter, crafters most often are well educated on the subject as well and certainly demands consistency in the product they use just as the fine artist does. Do all...of course not...but then again neither do all "fine" artist...

I do agree that lightfast is a major issue no matter the product, acrylics, oils, watercolor etc...and I agree that I want my work to last...I am like others here in that I use the paint that seems to work either in color or consistency/texture for the project I am doing.

Like most things in life there is room for more than one way to do things I guess.

Pam

:thumbsup: Great post Pam.

[oldradagast]

Matthew your point about consistency is well taken. However I must disagree with your statment that said :

"With craft paint, who knows what you're getting: not only can there be greater variation between different batches of paint, but the manufacturer has no real interest in keeping the paint's performance the same: so long as the "blue" paint is generally blue, the rest (to them) doesn't matter. So, they can end up changing the paint's mixing characteristics and you won't know until you learn the hard way in the middle of a painting."[/i]

I believe the manufacturer has great interest in keeping the paints performance the same! I also disagree that somehow because we are talking craft paints here the manufacturers think blue no matter what form is blue. You seem to imply that because it is "Craft" the manufacturers lack knowledge and education about such things! I hardly think that ths case. The artist, painter, crafters most often are well educated on the subject as well and certainly demands consistency in the product they use just as the fine artist does. Do all...of course not...but then again neither do all "fine" artist...

I do agree that lightfast is a major issue no matter the product, acrylics, oils, watercolor etc...and I agree that I want my work to last...I am like others here in that I use the paint that seems to work either in color or consistency/texture for the project I am doing.

Like most things in life there is room for more than one way to do things I guess.

Pam

Point well taken: There definitely are companies who produce consistent craft paints because they care about that consistency in the same way that companies that produce "artist grade" paints care about their product. Some of them may even be produced by the same companies (an interesting question for those who are experienced with craft paints.)

I don't know what the odds are of having quality issues or unexpected formula changes with craft paints (maybe they are very low - somebody with experience in that field would have to speak up about it), but the consistency of the artist-grade paints is one reason why I buy them: I know that a tube of one color in a given series will probably stay that way as long as that series is around.

To make a long story short: make sure you know what you're buying since even if it *looks* cheap, a tube or pot of very cheap paint that isn't really useful for any painting isn't cheap at all. But the same can be said for buying a tube of really expensive, high quality paint that doesn't really work for anything you paint.

[ourcassidy!]

ArtistPete, thanks!


Matthew...thanks for the considerate post. Appreciate your reply. I as well don't know exactly what the companies produce and by what standards, but I do know that take for instance Delta Paints...(produce cream coat paints)...are part of a $6 Billion company and that doesn't happen by producing inferior product...Deco Americana is a privately held company so I don't know what their $$ figures are, but I do know they produce a very fine product...The coverage is good, the flow is nice...I don't know about the lightfast issues...but as I said I have a piece outside for 12+ years that hasn't faded...pretty good example...

I agree...know what you are buying...

Thanks, Pam

[Einion]

You don't use cheap paints or cheap substraights or cheap brushes because they are CHEAP!
We're not the Art Police, we should post our opinions as opinions.


Someone should do a lightfast test on some of the craft acrylics by masking half a painting and leaving that painting on their vehicle dashboard for a week.
A week is not nearly long enough. I ran my own lightfastness tests for about two years.

Of course if any paint did show fading after only a week's exposure it would be catastrophically bad but generally it would require months at least even somewhere with full-time direct sunlight.


Until I experience something negative using liquid acrylics I will continue to use them. My experience with them over the years trumps any negative opinion. Until I witness any cracking, yellowing, fading, etc. or anything negative I'll continue to use them.
Okay, so are independent test results enough or do you need to see the results firsthand?

I'll continue to use my acrylic sealer I buy at Walmart--not through an artsy-fartsy supply store.:)
Is it removable?


Another aspect is the lack of full disclosure. With the craft paints, you usually don't even know what pigments are being used -- they just don't tell you. Bruce MacEvoy and others recommend simply not buying paints that don't provide this information on the label.
Good point; relates to a something I found yesterday.

In reply to this question:
I'm taking painting classes, and the teacher is using acrylic craft paint on canvas. He swears this paint lasts and that he's used them on his paintings for years with no trouble. I'm not convinced. Is this kind of paint all right to use?
Mark Gottsegen answered:
The answer depends partly on which craft paint you want to use—there are some of fairly high quality. But as a general rule I wouldn't want to use the average craft paint to make art I might want to exhibit or sell. On the whole, these paints aren't up to artists' standards.

One sign of the quality of these paints is to check the label. Does the manufacturer list the pigment(s) in the paint, using both the common name and Color Index Name? The Color Index Name is a universal code used for identifying colors, consisting of the type of dye or pigment used to make the paint, the general hue and an assigned number. For example, zinc white's Color Index Name is PW4. The letter P means "pigment," W stands for "white," and 4 is the specific number assigned to the pigment.

Next, make sure the pigment's lightfastness, or resistance to light, is listed and that the vehicle (a medium such as linseed oil or an acrylic dispersion that binds the pigment) is identified. If the above requirements are met, then you may have found a quality craft paint. If there's just a color name, like Jolly Blue, with no lightfastness or specific vehicle mentioned, then beware of your materials.

I wasn't previously aware that DecoArt made another acrylic line, Traditions, and it's interesting comparing how they themselves refer to each product. They do state on both products' pages that they are lightfast (although they stress it a little more for Traditions) however there's no information provided in either case that I could see.

Einion

[connievanwinssen]

When I say I use cheap paints. I mainly mean Talens Amsterdam. I always buy the 1 litre jars.(10 euro for 1 litre) They list pigments and lightfastness ratings. I think it's a very good studentgrade paint. I've also used Golden, liquitex, W&N, Ara, and you name it. I find them to be no better then the Amsterdam. So why buy expensive paints then? The same goes for brushes.:)

[ArtistPete]

Okay, so are independent test results enough or do you need to see the results firsthand?


I haven't seen any independent test results that indicates the brands of acrylic paints I use are substandard in lightfastness, cracking, etc.
I've done my own analysis--15 years on many different materials--no problems.
The info on the side of one of the boxes I have for FolkArt Acrylics states:
Designed especially for decorative painters, the pigmentation and consistency of FolkArt® allows the artist to accomplish the desired results for any style of strokework. It can be used to achieve transparent washes or blend like oils. No matter what kind of projects you're creating, with more than 250 colors, you are sure to find the shade you're looking for. There are even artist's pigments, metallic and gem colors for special effects. The colors are constantly reviewed and updated to keep up with decorating trends.

When I'm painting sawblades, feathers, masonite, etc. this paint fits my needs perfectly. I thin it and it sprays great out of my airbrushes too! I don't want to sound like I'm defending this paint quality--but I am defending my choice--and debating those who are saying this paint is somehow substandard.......which it may be for someone's style or preference--not mine.


Is it removable? (Referring to the acrylic sealer I use)

Probably with gasoline:) I use Kylon Matte or Clear gloss sealer--also an acrylic sealer in the craft area at Walmart. The Krylon super gloss sealer works great on my finished fish(taxidermy) mounts as well. Permanent/non-yellowing....perfect.

[Bill_E]

Perhaps the practical issue is risk management. The computer you are sitting in front of is probably a consumer grade product. For industrial applications, it is often desirable to use products that meet more stringent specifications. Both products are good in their own right and both functionally do the same job. The consumer product may even do the industrial job just fine. The industrial product definitely costs more.

So what are you buying with "pro" products? In every other field I can think of it is quality control and rigorous product testing. The cheaper product may be just as good, but you know the "pro" product has actually been tested to make sure. Its a matter of risk management.

So does it matter what you use? Only if you want the confidence that that the end product will be as reliable as you want the product you are selling to be. If you don't care if it lasts 25 years and the buyer doesn't either, no problem. If the buyer, however, wants a product that will last 100 years, perhaps due diligence is required on the artists part. It really is a matter of ethics.

So if you paint for your own enjoyment and don't sell works with intended longevity, use what ever paint you like.

If you paint for longevity, use products that are rigorously lab tested or have a demonstrated longevity (unlike oils, no acrylics have that...yet).

In the end...PAINT.

[dances_with_oils]

Pete and others, I think in part, that you have started mixing apples with oranges in this discussion. The original question was "why not use cheap acrylics?" Viscosity of the paint really has nothing to do with answering the question - thin or thick if it's cheap and nasty stuff then it's going to fail at some point.

As a result of this type of discussion numerous typical responses tend to show up over and over again. One is that house paint is cheaper and therefore more economical to use. Another is that the artist has never seen any problem and attest to the longevity of the material from their own experiences. One other is craft paint versus artist grade paint (regardless of viscosity) is a cheaper way to go because some artists can only afford the cheap stuff. Yet, over and over again, the response to that is the higher end paints are actually more economical because of pigment, coverage and their ability to withstand dilution in any additive or medium and these industry comments are often ignored and the discussion goes on and on.

And in every discussion of this type the answers are typical as well. House paint is NOT designed to last, it will break down and it will cause conservation and restoration problems. If you tell your client what you've used then fair game if they accept the additional and likely very costly conservation of the piece. If one doesn't inform the client, and the house paint fails, it simply is a matter of the artist's reputation heading to the bargain basement level (where they probably bought their house paint). Time and time again, conservationists have said.. artist grade acrylic - good.. house paint - bad for conserving it.

There are some very fine craft paints out there and no doubt there are also quality liquid paints ( I know the brand I use has a wide range in viscosity of their paints and I have no issue diluting paint to suit what I need it to do) as well just as their are quality artist acrylics available. No one is debating whether one should use liquid or thick paints... what is up for debate is whether given the availability of quality paints of any style, whether one should cheap out and use the cheap and nasty stuff and not tell your clients.

Some have responded to that question with they don't care or they don't feel their work is worth the extra expense or that they don't expect their work to last or increase in value. Again, the answer to all of the above is, that's great, just make sure you tell your client what to expect. But also consider this, if you are painting past hobby or enjoyment and are painting to sell any of your work then either use higher end paint so you won't pass on the conservation concerns and you won't have to hide what you use to your clients or use cheaper or non-conformational paints but be honest about it and market yourself as that.

You see, the debate isn't about the touchy feely stuff of how paint makes your life fun, it's about ethics. If you are selling your work in any market level, it comes down to whether one feels it is ok to pass off cheap paints to the client without informing them? Having answered that question the next one becomes, Is it fair to pass onto the client the additional costs involved at conserving their purchase without their knowledge? How would you feel if your spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on an item only to find that you've taken on something that will cost you three of four times the initial amount to keep it running, and they seller didn't tell you? You'd probably expect your money back or maybe even sue the seller or maybe even have them charged with misrepresentation and/or fraud. What I doubt what you would do, in my opinion, is sit back and say, "thems the breaks".

All this smoke and mirrors over thin paint or thick paint is evading the main thrust of the discussion - why not use cheap acrylics? Use them if one must, but have the ethics to inform your client what you have used. If after all, one feels they are good bang for their buck then saying that to a client should not present a problem. I'm always curious with this discussion topic at the number of folks that support, argue and extol the virtues of their bargain paint but are not able to tell their clients what exactly they use on the work they are about to sell. That omission to me as an artist, makes no sense. I stand by my choices of material to the point I write out every item I used. Damn straight I want to know if any of those products fail at any point. But unless I keep track of them, I'll never a) be able to correct it or b) stop using it if it becomes problematic. I have no problems discussing this topic with my clients. I do give them literature on conservation issues with acrylic paint and work with them in the initial stages to ensure that once their painting is complete, they know and understand how to care for it.

Now Pete if you are for example, assured that the paint product you use is great and has no issues with conservation then why not let your client in on that thinking? The original post in this thread indicated that the artist in question uses paint of questionable quality and also adds they don't tell their client simply because they don't ask. To answer the question posed. I think it's erroneous to use cheap paint regardless of its origins in work that is on the open market and it's unethical not to disclose to the client what the materials used consisted of.

[baltar50]

There are enough bottled quality paints that you don't need the cheap stuff. I have worked in the craft paints and they perform good but they have chemicals instead of pigment. Liquitex and Golden make great soft bodied acrylics and you don't lose quality. the Liquitex is slightly thicker but it's still thin enough.
I've seen too many old pieces that fade due to cheap components. I don't want to take that chance anymore.

[Nilesh]

There are enough bottled quality paints that you don't need the cheap stuff. I have worked in the craft paints and they perform good but they have chemicals instead of pigment. Liquitex and Golden make great soft bodied acrylics and you don't lose quality. the Liquitex is slightly thicker but it's still thin enough.
I've seen too many old pieces that fade due to cheap components. I don't want to take that chance anymore.
That's a good way of putting it -- not wanting to take a chance.

There are some success stories with the craft paints, though; and this thread has kept my mind open to them. I believe some of these paints are fine. Jacquard's craft acrylic paints are considered to be at the higher end of the craft-paint spectrum.

Maybe that is something to keep in mind, to clarify some of the discussion here. In each category -- professional or artists' grade acrylics, student grade acrylics, school grade acrylics, craft grade acrylics, and house paints -- there are various brands and quality levels.

I suspect that the very best of the craft grade acrylics are of higher quality than some of the professional or artist grade acrylics.

The only paints I feel secure with, if I want a lasting painting with lasting colors, are the ones that specify the pigments and the lightfastness, and are made by companies that I feel I can trust.

That is not to say that none of the craft paints are good enough -- I am convinced that some of them are quite good enough. I just don't know exactly which ones and which colors.

I had a conversation with Jacquard. For some reason they don't provide as much information as the major players in the world of professional grade acrylics, and they won't provide it even when asked. Maybe it just isn't part of that world (the world of craft paints) to provide the sort of information that has come to be expected in the world of professional artist grade paints.

Or maybe they have something to hide. In either case -- or whatever other case may be -- I just don't like it. I lean toward products and companies that have a freedom-of-information or full-disclosure policy, or something closer to it.

However, I do believe that some of their paints are perfectly fine, along with some of the other craft paints; and I may even try them when I don't feel I am taking a chance with the trust someone puts in an artist (usually implicitly -- it is tantamount to an implicit agreement or understanding) to create a long-lasting, non-fading painting.

[Nilesh]

I haven't seen any independent test results that indicates the brands of acrylic paints I use are substandard in lightfastness, cracking, etc.
I've done my own analysis--15 years on many different materials--no problems.
The info on the side of one of the boxes I have for FolkArt Acrylics states:
Designed especially for decorative painters, the pigmentation and consistency of FolkArt® allows the artist to accomplish the desired results for any style of strokework. It can be used to achieve transparent washes or blend like oils. No matter what kind of projects you're creating, with more than 250 colors, you are sure to find the shade you're looking for. There are even artist's pigments, metallic and gem colors for special effects. The colors are constantly reviewed and updated to keep up with decorating trends.

When I'm painting sawblades, feathers, masonite, etc. this paint fits my needs perfectly. I thin it and it sprays great out of my airbrushes too! I don't want to sound like I'm defending this paint quality--but I am defending my choice--and debating those who are saying this paint is somehow substandard.......which it may be for someone's style or preference--not mine.


(Referring to the acrylic sealer I use)

Probably with gasoline:) I use Krylon Matte or Clear gloss sealer--also an acrylic sealer in the craft area at Walmart. The Krylon super gloss sealer works great on my finished fish(taxidermy) mounts as well. Permanent/non-yellowing....perfect.
That's good to know -- personally I like being able to buy trustworthy and useful artists' materials from WM.

Does anyone know how these Krylon or WM products compare with other, similar products sold to artists (clear spray-on acrylics)?

If you wanted to add a removable varnish layer over these sealers, I don't see why you couldn't do so.

[Nilesh]

Nova Color acrylics, in some colors (pigments specified by the company, on the labels), are even cheaper than most of the craft paints.

So, in answer to the question "Why not use cheap acrylics?," *some* "cheap" acrylics ("cheap" has more than one meaning -- inexpensive being one of them, inferior quality being another -- so it might be better to use the word inexpensive in this context) or *inexpensive* acrylics are also professional or artist grade; and since the pigments and lightfastness ratings are provided, along with the nature of the binder, they seem to be a trustworthy choice.

Raw Titanium Matte -- 6.75 for 16 ounces; 11.25 for 32 ounces.

Bone/Ivory Black -- 7.00 for 16 ounces; 11.75 for 32 ounces.

Phthalo Turquoise -- 7.00 for 16 ounces; 11.75 for 32 ounces.

Burnt Sienna -- 7.75 for 16 ounces; 13.00 for 32 ounces.

There are other colors in their line that are more expensive; but they are made with pigments that would be impossible to find (unless very dilute) in the inexpensive craft acrylics.

So "artist grade" isn't necessarily or always more expensive.

[ArtistPete]

That would be unethical to use them Nielsh--don'tcha know.:lol:

DWO:--"if it's cheap and nasty stuff"

Who said anything about "nasty"? It's inexpensive--yes. I think the liquid acylics that I use are great. The Krylon sealers I use are about 4 bucks a can!! Excellent stuff--does what it's supposed to do. :thumbsup:

My choosing to use the acrylics I paint with have absolutely nothing to do with cost....that's just a sort of a bonus!

[laudesan]

Has anyone mentioned, that even artist grade paints fade, and some rapidly. Opera is one.

[ourcassidy!]

Matthew, IMO it is very wrong of you to suggest that because our brand and type of materials is not listed along side the painting offered for sale makes us unethical! As I pointed out in another post I have never seen a "Brand " listed...I have seen statements such as "Artist Quality, Archival etc"...but never the brand. That may be standard practice in some parts of the country, but in the Central coast area of Santa Barbara County CA that is not the case...and I would include the Santa Barbara City galleries as well in that statement. Not saying it is never done, but in 10 years of hanging at various galleries in the area in Solvang, Los Olivos, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria etc. I have not seen it.

I would be most happy to speak with anyone as to the brand and quality of the materials which I use if they should ask...Guess I just see things differently...If I were the buyer and I was interested in these things I would assume it would be my responsibility to inquire from the artist...I would never assume that had I not ask I should then hold the artist responsible should it not last etc.

I am certainly not suggesting that any artist or any other profession for that matter deceive anyone ever...so please, don't ever assume that. Just because materials are not listed with the painting offered for sale by no stretch means that the artist has something to hide or uses inferior materials...could come down to something as simple as local custom...

At any rate as was pointed out we all have our opinions and agree or not usually there is information that turns out to be of value in discussions such as this.

Nilesh...you have a great way of keeping both sides of the arguments balanced! You are open minded and discuss all this without any suggested put-downs...Thanks!

Like most issues there is seldom only one side to the story. Many commercial companies, be it paint, soap, toothpaste...many in fact most will not tell you things very specific about their product...reason being is security...industrial security is a huge issue.'

Is one paint better than the other..craft or artist quality...perhaps, depending on brands etc...just as some brushes are better than others...but then there are people like Nita Engle who paint with sticks...does beautiful works!

Happy painting to all...Pam

[dances_with_oils]

Pam, I believe you have attributed to Matthew what my thoughts are on the matter.

Let's look at this subject from a different point of view.

Suppose we agree that "paint" is nothing more than an artist's "tool".

Suppose we further agree that an artist in order to use his/her tools must have an understanding of how they work in order to utilize them as as best they can.

Suppose we then come to an understanding that to create a painting it requires the following steps with the following materials/tools: paint is: pigment (=color) in a substance, generally of liquid or paste form (= vehicle, binder, medium); that can be, picked up and placed on to a surface (=support i.e. a canvas, paper, board, etc.); where it will stay in the position desired and dry there by affixing itself to the support.
But, as much could be said of “house” paint; so what separates or distinguishes, “Artist Paints” from house paint or children's paints or the rest?

Suppose we then agree that the title "fine art" denotes "quality" and we'll leave it at that in order to distinguish it between children's paint or house paint.

Now what is the common element between all forms of paint? It is the pigment. What you add to that pigment as a binder is what makes it a watercolour or a gouache or an oil or an acrylic paint. The problem arises in this simplistic scenario when one substitutes the pigment for synthetic hues or imitations - they simply do not perform as would be expected. Using cheaper paints and by cheap I do mean the stuff that contains no pigment but only imitation colour, too much filler and minimal binders, one tends to limit their understanding of what pigment should actually be doing and thereby limiting their ability as an artist.

Consider it as if you wanted to be a French Chef but were told you could only use margarine and skim milk. You'd get recipes that were edible but they would lack the richness and taste of real butter and cream. If as a chef that's all you ever used was the skim milk and margarine, you would in all likelihood never be a great chef but one who is limited by their materials/ingredients.

An artist who never or refuses to use or learn how quality materials are suppose to work end up only limiting themselves. For those who would substitute, in favor of the “bargain brands”, remember that with the lowering of quality, you arrive with paints that do not work really well, nor carry with them the characteristics you may be looking for or expect. You will simply end up painting to the limits of your paint and not to the limits of your talent and own ability.

I think Nancy Doyle sums it up quite nicely in her article on the "Correct Way to Do Art". She is often asked how to correctly draw, paint and create a picture and is amazed at how often an artist will engage in following rules or the correct way to create the piece but overlook that the only correct way to make a painting is to use your tools correctly. She writes:

Even with the philosophical notion that nothing lasts, many artists (and collectors) value permanence in a work of art. Part of the expectation, after purchasing a work, is that it will last many years, even centuries. Oil paintings perhaps were considered the most valuable of mediums for this reason, until acrylics appeared in the 1950's. Acrylics are now considered permanent, being plastic (is this good for the environment?) So in this sense - the use of materials - there is a "correct" way to stretch canvases and prime them. Because of interacting chemicals in the materials, it is good to follow traditional practices when stretching and priming canvases, if we want our work to survive. Many people have asked me about using unorthodox materials in artworks - such as using hairspray as a fixative for pastel. They don't seem to be concerned about using permanent materials (correct ones), yet they want to find the correct way to paint their images. And using permanent materials appropriately together is the only place where they should be concerned about correctness (assuming they don't want their paint layer to dissolve in 10 or 20 years).

As for being wrong about ethical behaviour one only needs to look further afield to organizations such as The National Association of Independent Artists who are very concerned about ethical behaviour of artists. They are advocating that Artist Information Statements be used. These statements include information for jurors, judges, show committee and other artists but more importantly, convey information to the viewer what they are seeing, how it was made and what was used in the process. There is a movement afoot in the art world that no longer relies on Caveat Emptor- let the buyer beware. Artist misrepresentation is a big deal and it includes, selling work that is not original to that artist, using studio apprentices and claiming the work is entirely the artist's, using unusual materials that are not proprietary processes or trade secrets and not disclosing to the patron what they are about to buy, slide misrepresentation, or proxy exhibitors. They set out some examples as follows:

The following criteria should be satisfied in all statements:

A photograph of the artist and contact information. The photograph may be a portrait but it is preferable to show the artist at work. It is important that the artist is identifiable. In the case of collaborative work, photo should include both artists.

Identification of medium and processes/techniques used. This should be simple - certainly not a disclosure of trade secrets or proprietary processes, i.e "painted wood" is probably enough rather than disclosing the special kind of paint you developed over the years and what kind of wood. (this would not include paint made by other manufacturers)

Specific explanation of how the work is produced.
If paid employees, assistants or apprentices are used, a concise and complete description of their involvement should be included. If you don't use assistants or apprentices, state that none are used.

Where appropriate, identify materials and methods of handling those materials. Again, this should not entail disclosure of proprietary processes.
It should be stated if an outside source such as a foundry or printing lab is used.

Resume-type information such as awards, exhibitions, collections, etc. should NOT be included in this statement. Assuming that the show allows it, this type of information can be posted separately.

Any other educational information could be included, but the overall statements should not exceed one page. They give this as an example:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/11-Sep-2009/109508-bellacapture.gif

Still think you just have to wait until your buyer asks the question?

The law of Caveat Emptor (which is what you are relying upon when you place the onus on the consumer to ask the right questions) is fast fading into the sunset. More and more consumer groups and judges are holding sellers of any merchandise accountable for failure if there was no disclosure of latent defects. Latent defect is the current trend in courts that are overturning the buyer beware aspect of purchases. If the buyer can prove that you knew you included substandard materials that were not disclosed and it fails, you the seller, are going to be held accountable. Still want to take the chance that you'll use materials that could be iffy and not inform your buyer but wait it out until they ask?

Now I'll go back to my original comment. If you stand by your materials and believe them to permanent, then why not just disclose it to your buyer? Let them decide if they want to hand over their coin to you. Why all the fuss over a simple thing like setting out what you use.

[ArtistPete]

An artist who never or refuses to use or learn how quality materials are suppose to work end up only limiting themselves. For those who would substitute, in favor of the “bargain brands”, remember that with the lowering of quality, you arrive with paints that do not work really well, nor carry with them the characteristics you may be looking for or expect. You will simply end up painting to the limits of your paint and not to the limits of your talent and own ability.

1) I don't think i am "limiting" myself by using liquid acrylics. I've used tube acrylics and don't care for them in my style of painting. The liquids have the consistency I am looking for and they work well through my airbrush.

2) The paints I choose are not a substitute for anything. As I stated before, price is not a factor at all.

3) The liquid acrylics have the characteristics that I am looking for--that's why I use them. They work superbly on all the different surfaces I paint such as metal and feathers along w/ masonite board.

4) The paints i use do not limit my abilities or talent--I'd say they expand them.

Customers of mine wouldn't give a rat's patoot what kind of acrylic or what brand name I'm using. Some of them already have paintings of mine that have been hanging in sunny rooms and dark damp basements (my sister) for years and they look as good as the day I painted them.....



Suppose we further agree that an artist in order to use his/her tools must have an understanding of how they work in order to utilize them as as best they can.

I think this should be directed back at you dances w oils.

[oldradagast]

[quote=ourcassidy!]Matthew, IMO it is very wrong of you to suggest that because our brand and type of materials is not listed along side the painting offered for sale makes us unethical! As I pointed out in another post I have never seen a "Brand " listed...I have seen statements such as "Artist Quality, Archival etc"...but never the brand. That may be standard practice in some parts of the country, but in the Central coast area of Santa Barbara County CA that is not the case...and I would include the Santa Barbara City galleries as well in that statement. Not saying it is never done, but in 10 years of hanging at various galleries in the area in Solvang, Los Olivos, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria etc. I have not seen it.

Not sure if this was directed at me or not (I don't know how many Matthew's are on this thread), but I didn't suggestion any such thing, nor did I try to give anyone a hard time for not listing their painting material next to their paintings.

My only message was that artist's-grade paint (and good student-grade paint) *in general* have better quality control, more information about what's in them, and tend to not change composition for long periods of time (which makes it easier to find favorites, stick with them, and develop a working palatte) vs. the more inexpensive craft paints. Use whatever works for you, but there is a risk of "false savings" when using very cheap paint, particularly if it is "mystery paint" where you're not sure what's in it or if it has changed since the last time you bought it.

[kenyart]

I have never used 'cheap craft acrylics', but I've had an experience that may apply. I recently worked on a mural for the first time, and I was asked to buy the paint. I purchased mostly student grade Liquitex products, not craft type, which the other person on the project had used before.

She kept exclaiming how great it was that only one layer was necessary, not the two or three she'd had to do only other murals.

Seems the thinness factor in the craft paint means using more paint, so maybe it's not more economical? It's a matter of choice, of course.

[ourcassidy!]

Dances with oils:

1st of all I would never knowingly sell something that I believed or knew was an inferior product...paintings or anything else...

As for your statement:
The law of Caveat Emptor (which is what you are relying upon when you place the onus on the consumer to ask the right questions) is fast fading into the sunset. More and more consumer groups and judges are holding sellers of any merchandise accountable for failure if there was no disclosure of latent defects. Latent defect is the current trend in courts that are overturning the buyer beware aspect of purchases. If the buyer can prove that you knew you included substandard materials that were not disclosed and it fails, you the seller, are going to be held accountable. Still want to take the chance that you'll use materials that could be iffy and not inform your buyer but wait it out until they ask?

I refer to my statement above...if I did want to sell someothing that was defective I would have the buyer sign a release that it had been disclosed...BUT...seems you are making the assumption that liquid/craft acrylics are defective...some I am sure are...some are not.

Where we differ I think is this...I believe that as a consumer it is not only my right but moreoever my responsibility to ask quesetions, be responsible for my own decission...As well as the seller should be honest . From a marketing standpoint the statements probably make a good idea and certainly there is nothing wrong with doing them. Seems you assume that because the statement is absent the artist is hiding something...I believe that in general most people are honest. If I am spending thousands on a painting of course I want to know more about it than if I spent a couple of hundred for example...but it is my responsibility as a buyer to inquire.

Are there fradulant artist? Of course...are there fradulant lawyers? of course...in every profession you can find people who think nothing of scaming people....Thing is I don't need the artist, nor the lawyers, nor the courts assuming that I don't have enough sense to ask questions and protect myself...

I think ArtistPete sums it up pretty nicely.

AS to your question "Still want to take the chance" (given the courts view)...I don't make my living painting/selling art like others may do...but this I do know...If the courts would stop assuming all people are too stupid to take care of themselves, stop trying to control everyones life and stay out of their business this world would be far better off...

Last post on this as it has competely lost the original intent since it has been turned into a judgement of people instead of an evaulation of product...happy painting all...

Pam

[Nilesh]

Here is a cheap painting, done with cheap paints on a cheap support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiL6TDQJGLE

Some of these sorts of paints are acrylics (usually solvent based, sometimes water based).

This brings up some other points that are relevant to the discussion here.

One of them is this: These paintings are done on inexpensive posterboard, which is a cheap, non-archival support or substrate. This sort of posterboard will probably become brittle with age, and may discolor. These artists buy their posterboard at Walgreens, WM, Staples, and other stores, typically for seventy-nine cents a sheet, or less.

The buyers don't seem to worry much, though. They are often paying about twenty or thirty dollars (sometimes less, sometimes more, but commonly in this range). They may be a little surprised if something happens in five or ten or twenty years, but -- and this seems like an important point -- they don't really expect something archival in this genre and price range. (At least many of them don't; I suppose some do, but it is a somewhat unreasonable expectation.)

Some of the colors may fade, but others don't -- overall they don't seem to be too bad -- and these artists don't seem too concerned. Some of the buyers might be concerned if they stopped to think about it; but most of them seem reasonably satisfied with the level of longevity they are getting. The level is not too disparate from from reasonable expectations.

After all, people buy bouquets of flowers and don't expect them to last for generations, or for a lifetime, or even for a year or a month.

These sorts of paintings seem to last as long as expected, for the most part.

When it comes to some things, though -- paintings that are seen as fine art, for example, among quite a few other things -- other levels of expectation tend to be in play.

(Fine art, however, seems a bit special in this regard -- computers, televisions, radios, jets, cars, and other vehicles -- even houses, apartments, and a variety of other structures -- aren't expected to last terribly long. Fine art, though, is often expected to last much longer, even for centuries. There is a tradition of that, which is not often entirely spelled out or made explicit. Occasionally, in some of the art literature, however, it is spelled out; and the expectation is in circulation, even if it is often implicit.)


***
All of which isn't to imply that none of the craft paints are up to the task.

If "cheap" is taken to mean inferior quality and non-archival, then there may be good reasons not to go with that sort of cheap.

If "cheap" is taken to mean inexpensive, then it depends on the quality of the product in question. This sort of "cheap" -- in itself -- is not a disqualifier. The quality level of the specific product may or may not be a disqualifier.

How "archival" a work of art should be is an interesting question in itself, and it seems to depend on the artist, and on the buyers or clients or owners or viewers.

There is another sort of case that may arise: what if the work of art changes hands? What if it becomes a valued family heirloom, and multiple generations become involved?

Even without expectations on the part of the owners or viewers -- even if they were to have no expectations, and would not be disappointed or surprised if something faded or deteriorated after twenty or thirty years -- even if that were acceptable to them -- wouldn't it be nice if it didn't have to happen? Wouldn't that be a better gift to them? Why not leave something that is both beautiful and lasting, even if it exceeds expectations?

It seems like a nice gesture.

If a spray paint artist took a little extra trouble and painted on archival supports with archival colors, why not? -- wouldn't it be something like a good deed?, or a gift well given? -- or a job well done?

Or something that has a little extra element or aspect of beauty?

[dances_with_oils]

Pam:

Going on your current train of thought, you have assumed that my bone of contention is and surrounds liquid/craft paint. I believe you have erroneously made that assumption. My bone of contention as the original post sets out is and will always be, artists that use inferior paints/materials and try to pass them off as high end materials and not making a disclosure to the buyer.

My second thought was to question those who have contributed to this thread stating that they find no fault with their material or whatever it is they are using why they simply would not set out their list of materials to the buyer to let them decide. The response has been lacking.

I have over a number of posts defined what I feel is inferior paint products and no where have I picked on any particular brand or type. I think I was quite clear on setting out that cheap to me means loaded with fillers, water and lacking in real pigment. I also made it clear that the viscosity of the paint has little to do with my definition of cheapness.

In your own posts, you have set out that it should be the onus of the buyer to ask questions and that you would only disclose product if the buyer asked. My reference to the courts is simply to offer a response that is based in fact and not anecdotal that "buyer beware" is going of of vogue. What used to offer a veil of protection to sellers is now precariously teetering on the next case to head to court.

I don't make my living painting/selling art like others may do...but this I do know...If the courts would stop assuming all people are too stupid to take care of themselves, stop trying to control everyones life and stay out of their business this world would be far better off...

I find your references to the court systems a little over the top and I'm quite perplexed as to why it raised such a strong response. You may have overlooked that anyone can begin an action and these actions do not spring from a vacuum, there must be parties that have a foundation of damage that the law offers a remedy for. The court as you would have us believe, do not jump into the fray uninvited and issue out decrees nor do they assume people are stupid. Stupidity, the last time I looked was not a head of action nor was it a remedy. That, according to free and democratic nation states lies solely in the hands of its legislators. I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to slam lawyers. I personally think that the lawyers who are in the courts now trying to win artists perpetual royalties for their resold works are angels.

Last post on this as it has completely lost the original intent since it has been turned into a judgement of people instead of an evaluation of product...

Now this is interesting. Since no one purporting the lesser quality products are just as good as any artist quality products or the ones who purport that it doesn't matter to the buyer have offered anything other than a label on a container as demonstrative evidence that it doesn't make a difference, then I would say there isn't much to support any claims.

Yet, when presented with references, articles and scientific analysis that oppose their views those were simply ignored by the "doesn't make a difference" set. Somehow those folks felt they were being judged. The judgement if any, has been making an assertion without being able to back it up with something more than anecdotal references. Without recognizable and repeatable proof, it's hard to make the case.

I asked the question given that a number of posters claimed they see no issue with using materials that would be considered by conservationists as inferior, that if they believed that to be true, what not disclose it to the buyer? Which if you recall was the second part of the original post, the artist didn't feel his buyers cared what he used.

I pointed out that there are large groups of artists, galleries, collectors and shows that do care. I also pointed out the irony via Nancy Doyle's article of the nitpicking that an artist will do over a technique but use cheap materials to try and achieve it. It simply does not make sense.

Pete, not to sound glib at your poke but I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, art and toxicology. I pretty much have what paints can or cannot do down pat.

Nilesh, all very valid points.

[ArtistPete]

Pete, not to sound glib at your poke but I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, art and toxicology. I pretty much have what paints can or cannot do down pat.

.

I don't think you do.

I have over 15 years of experience using liquid acrylics.....and they do everything I need them to do. "Happy artist/happy customers". Again, from feather painting, applying on primed metal, and masonite/canvas, the liquid acrylics have held up over time, not faded, no chipping, etc. and painting with them is a joy!
Has the sealer I use help retain it's quality? Possibly--but the combination is a quality combination as far as I'm concerned......chemically or not. There's no other fact that disputes my actual years of use with them.

[AmesArt]

I have only used cheap bottled acrylics in a painting when I want a metallic or pearl-like paint. Are there any artist quality acrylics that have a metallic or pearl-like effect?

[Einion]

Larger issues of permanence aside - discolouration of the medium, bonding problems (delamination etc.) - lightfastness is a key aspect of paint, any paint, so I'm going to focus on that. To repeat what I said above, nobody is forcing anyone to have lightfastness concerns, but you should at least be honest with yourself - and upfront with others when discussing this kind of thing - about whether it is or not.

Now obviously white, black, many or all of the earths and a few of the dark blues in a craft paint are likely to be plenty lightfast since they'll be made with stable pigments, the same type used in higher-end paint since they are relatively inexpensive. But what about the yellows and reds, some of the greens?

Without disclosed lightfastness - which should be tested by industry-approved methods - you just don't know; you don't even know which pigments are used in most cases (because they just won't tell us).

Einion

P.S. There is no guarantee with artists'-grade acrylics either, however greater confidence in the product's lightfastness is appropriate since they do disclose the pigments and give the results of lightfastness testing.

[Einion]

I haven't seen any independent test results that indicates the brands of acrylic paints I use are substandard in lightfastness, cracking, etc.
So if you did, would you stop using them?

I've done my own analysis--15 years on many different materials--no problems.
Please don't take this the wrong way but that is not an analysis. It's anecdotal information based on a single person's experience, under whatever conditions there are there. That sort of this IS fine for individuals - most people use their own lack of problems to inform their future methods - but it's not any sort of warranty and it shouldn't be the basis of statements about the stability of that sort of paint (not the exact ones you're using remember) in the long term.

It is possible that a colour in a painting can fade or change colour and the artist doesn't notice. Because the change is incremental, and it might be very slight anyway, it's actually nearly impossible to spot this kind of thing.

WRT fastness to light, only by doing direct comparison tests with exposed and unexposed samples can one be sure. That's a fact not open to dispute since it is one of the basic tenets of industry lightfastness testing procedures.

Probably with gasoline:) I use Kylon Matte or Clear gloss sealer--also an acrylic sealer in the craft area at Walmart. The Krylon super gloss sealer works great on my finished fish(taxidermy) mounts as well. Permanent/non-yellowing....perfect.
Well it's worth mentioning then that removability is a key aspect of varnish for fine-art applications. If it's not for you then again, fine, but it puts things into perspective.

Craft painting is not fine-art painting (and vice-versa) and the standards of each are individual; nobody should apply one to the other, deliberately or not.


Has anyone mentioned, that even artist grade paints fade, and some rapidly. Opera is one.
Let's not divert attention - this is the very rare exception these days.

Even the majority of student/student ranges have a decent proportion of ASTM I and II pigments nowadays. But the thing about the paint we should be focussing on here, in comparison to artists' acrylics, is that there's NO disclosure, just vague statements with nothing to back them up.


I have only used cheap bottled acrylics in a painting when I want a metallic or pearl-like paint. Are there any artist quality acrylics that have a metallic or pearl-like effect?
Plenty. All iridescent paints have a metallic-like sheen; most are made with coated mica flakes but genuine metals are available from some makers (e.g. the Studio Bronze colours from Lascaux).

Einion

[sashntash]

Interesting discussion....

Just a point that's bothering me...

There are fluid/liquid acrylics in all grades.

The liquid "craft" acrylic paints that you can buy at Walmart, Michaels, etc.

liquid "student grade" acrylic paints

liquid "professional grade" acrylic paints.

Pete - you keep referring to the "liquid acrylic paints" that you use being fine for you. I think people need to be clear on which liquid acrylics you are talking about.

I just don't want beginners/novices to lump all fluid/liquid acrylics in the same category.

There is a difference between craft liquid paints and the professional grade fluid/liquid paints from a company like Golden just as there is a difference among brands in tubed acrylics.... from the student grade to the high end professional grade.

I started (for one month) with the craft liquids from Walmart and quickly got frustrated with them and tried the Golden fluid acrylics.

For ME... it was like night and day. I now use Golden's heavy body paints because I like the consistency better... but when I want to use fluid/liquid acrylics I use the Golden fluids.....

[Einion]

Just a point that's bothering me...

There are fluid/liquid acrylics in all grades.

The liquid "craft" acrylic paints that you can buy at Walmart, Michaels, etc.

liquid "student grade" acrylic paints

liquid "professional grade" acrylic paints.

Pete - you keep referring to the "liquid acrylic paints" that you use being fine for you. I think people need to be clear on which liquid acrylics you are talking about.
That point has been made a couple of times already, so hopefully anyone reading along won't have missed it.

Einion

[ArtistPete]

wow--I guess it's pretty hard for some of you to accept that a certain type of paint (that you may not use) works well for someone. I think I've adequately mentioned the brand names of the liquid acrylics I've used....AppleBarrel, Delta, FolkArt, etc. I've been clear. They are liquid acrylics--says so right on some of the bottles.....don't wanna turn on the newbies to the "wrong" paint.

Einion--I probably would stop using them if a study came out and said the paints I use will disintergrate in 50 years. So far for me--not any problems. Really, honest, no BS, pinkie swear....
The tube acrylics don't work as well for my applications. You may say they would....I'm 100% sure they don't--thanks anyway. Obtaining visible brush strokes and pallet knives aren't my thing. I'm happy the way my choice of acrylics adhere to the surfaces I paint. Will those "miracle tube acrylics" work so well on, let's say, a feather? I don't think they would. They are substandard for that application in my opinion. The colors I get from my choice of paints are perfect.
The Krylon sealer I use: I know it's sounds strange:confused: , but I want the sealer to seal my paint forever. I'd really prefer that it is not removeable. That's my perspective I guess-a key aspect for my choice of sealer.

All the sawblades, sickleblades, feathers, canvas and masonite paintings I've done over the years were done with craft-type bottled liquid acrylics.
Again, they flow great, mix well, airbrush nicely, apply great to the different surfaces I use, excellent color mixing, and together with my choice of permanent sealer is a great combination......for me and my customers.

Who knows, it may even bother some here that I choose to paint on sawblades and feathers! The gall of that guy.:lol:
As Elinion pointed out--that's not fine art-that's craft art.

Well, that should end any debate then-- I'm using the correct, accepted, and intended paint then, right? My ethics won't be questioned. I'm a craft-type painter who uses craft-type paint..end of story:thumbsup:

[Roger Evans]

Wow. I've read through this whole thread and what amazes me is that no one has stopped to consider that, well, whether the paints last or not doesn't really matter; at least, not to the commercial market (which is the same thing as the fine art market, really). I mean, look at oil paintings from long ago that are turning dark brown, discolored, cracking.....yet they're worth millions. That's because collectors don't buy paintings because of the painting but, rather, because who painted it. I know for a fact that "experts" have been fooled time and again by forgeries that artificially reflected the rages of time. So the signature becomes worth more than the actual painting that's above it. Certainly, from a legal standpoint, I can guarantee not a single collector, while writing a $1 million dollar check, has asked how much longer the 200 year old oil painting he's purchasing is going to last.

So, to me anyway, whether one acrylic lasts longer than another without changing appearance is kind of moot considering that acrylics will last longer than oils where everyone seems to just take the rapid deterioration of oils as "par for the course". I have even read experts claim that such discoloration only adds to the intrinsic value of the piece.

I say paint with what you like. It's not meant to last. It's meant to entertain.

Roger

[Faded]

I agree with Roger, use what works for you. For me there is no "right" type of paint, I've used all types in various ways, it just comes down to what feels right. If someone is still looking at my work in 200 years, well, that'll just be cool
-David

[sashntash]

wow--I guess it's pretty hard for some of you to accept that a certain type of paint (that you may not use) works well for someone. I think I've adequately mentioned the brand names of the liquid acrylics I've used....AppleBarrel, Delta, FolkArt, etc. I've been clear. They are liquid acrylics--says so right on some of the bottles.....don't wanna turn on the newbies to the "wrong" paint.

.............................

The tube acrylics don't work as well for my applications. You may say they would....I'm 100% sure they don't--thanks anyway. Obtaining visible brush strokes and pallet knives aren't my thing. I'm happy the way my choice of acrylics adhere to the surfaces I paint. Will those "miracle tube acrylics" work so well on, let's say, a feather? I don't think they would. They are substandard for that application in my opinion. The colors I get from my choice of paints are perfect.


Let me make myself perfectly clear :D

I firmly believe that everyone should use whatever paints work best for them and paint on whatever supports they like.

All I'm trying to say is...... :lol:

Pete - you keep comparing the AppleBarrel, Delta and Folk Art liquid acrylics that you use to "tube" acrylics in general.

I think that's mixing apples and oranges. Liquid acrylics and heavy bodied ("tube") acrylics are designed for totally different methods of application. As you say, tube acrylics are designed more for visible brushstrokes and palette knife painting - not exclusively, but you can't do that with fluid acrylics.

Fluid/liquid acrylics and "tube" acrylics are two different animals.

In my very humble opinion :D - and I am absolutely not arguing with you - the comparisons should be within the range of available fluid/liquid acrylics - only.

A totally separate discussion would be the various paints available in the "tube" or heavy bodied acrylic brands.

Soooo.... the question in my mind would be ---- how do the AppleBarrel, Delta, FolkArt liquid acrylics compare to a professional grade fluid acrylic line like the Golden Fluid Acrylics?

I have tried both and found a huge difference in "feel", concentration of pigments and covering power.

Have you ever tried a "professional grade" liquid acrylic? Just curious ....

As I said..... I believe everyone should use what they want.... this is just an interesting discussion... I'm not trying to convert anyone

[ArtistPete]

Soooo.... the question in my mind would be ---- how do the AppleBarrel, Delta, FolkArt liquid acrylics compare to a professional grade fluid acrylic line like the Golden Fluid Acrylics?

Yes sashntash, I've used many different brands of acrylics--liquid and paste. The liquid craft-type paints work the best for me when I use washes/transparent layering--which is most of the time.


I have tried both and found a huge difference in "feel", concentration of pigments and covering power.

I agree-me too! And I prefer the "feel", mixing, coloring, adhering, etc. properties of the brands I mentioned.:thumbsup:

[mercedes81]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I might have to try some craft paints on canvas now. I, too, prefer the thinner acrylics. I'm not a seller, which is why I'm not worried about archival issues.

[ArtistPete]

. I'm not a seller, which is why I'm not worried about archival issues.

Yeah, give 'em a try and let us know. The archival issue may not be an issue at all-pick up some Krylon sealer too!
FolkArt also has great additives such as gels, flow agents, blending additives, etc. I find the gels great to add for "smearing" affects when doing water reflections and extending drying times.....yep, they're cheap too.

[Mz_Sketch_Pad]

i use folk art and i use soft body liquetex- when i use acrylics as watercolor the folk art perform better-when i do something that needs more thickness- the liquetex or the system 3 works better

[Mz_Sketch_Pad]

off topic i really enjoyed the youtube video

[Einion]

Well, that should end any debate then-- I'm using the correct, accepted, and intended paint then, right? My ethics won't be questioned. I'm a craft-type painter who uses craft-type paint..end of story:thumbsup:
Hey, that is what they're called right on the label.

wow--I guess it's pretty hard for some of you to accept that a certain type of paint (that you may not use) works well for someone.
No actually it's not. Is it hard for you to accept that a different certain type of paint (that you don't use) works well for other someones?

I'm not sure that anybody has suggested that craft paints don't work for you (and I'm certainly not going to go back over the thread and check to make sure :D) and they obviously work for the unnamed artist mentioned in the first post of this thread... but there are issues that other people are concerned about which should not be dismissed or brushed under the carpet.

Einion--I probably would stop using them if a study came out and said the paints I use will disintergrate in 50 years.
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for answering.

The Krylon sealer I use: I know it's sounds strange:confused: , but I want the sealer to seal my paint forever. I'd really prefer that it is not removeable. That's my perspective I guess-a key aspect for my choice of sealer.
That's entirely appropriate for this kind of application - it's the same reason I tend to recommend polyurethane varnish for craft projects when the subject comes up - but the point I was getting at is it's a different choice for a different application.

Will those "miracle tube acrylics" work so well on, let's say, a feather? I don't think they would. They are substandard for that application in my opinion.
...
Again, they flow great, mix well, airbrush nicely, apply great to the different surfaces I use, excellent color mixing...
A point some people have made a couple of times now is that there are artists' acrylics that are close to or the same consistency as craft acrylics. So just in terms of fluidity there is no forced decision to use the latter.

Incidentally I have used a bit of Apple Barrel, Americana, Plaid and Delta Ceramcoat and compared to Jo Sonja for example there's no comparison in my estimation, the JS is significantly better across the board.


Wow. I've read through this whole thread and what amazes me is that no one has stopped to consider that, well, whether the paints last or not doesn't really matter; at least, not to the commercial market (which is the same thing as the fine art market, really).
But it does matter to some artists.

I say paint with what you like. It's not meant to last. It's meant to entertain.
I say paint with the best materials you can comfortably afford :)

Einion

[ArtistPete]

I say paint with the best materials you can comfortably afford :)

Or if price isn't a factor at all--paint with what works best.:thumbsup:

No actually it's not. Is it hard for you to accept that a different certain type of paint (that you don't use) works well for other someones?
If you've been following along, I think you'll find I've said 3 times that I've tried many different types and brands of acrylics.....I prefer the liquid bottled craft-type acrylics over them all. :wave: I think they are superior for my applications.

The whole difference in our opinions is this: Elitist-type artists can't accept other artist's preferences in paints or materials if they don't line up with their own. I mean, what other evidence is needed to show but some responses on this thread?

Cripes, and you're an art site moderator:eek:

Off subject: I can't stand abstracts........absolutely no talent in my opinion......unless under the age 7 that is.

i use folk art and i use soft body liquetex- when i use acrylics as watercolor the folk art perform better-when i do something that needs more thickness- the liquetex or the system 3 works better

I've also used the Daler-Rowney System 3 acrylics. Very close consistency and characteristics to the bottled acrylics I use now. Good choices.

Hey, that is what they're called right on the label.
Einion

Ummm....I don't know but I just looked at an AppleBarrel by Plaid label.

It says:
Acrylic Paint

On the back it says:
Permanent* Fast drying*Waterbase*High Quality, all-purpose acrylic paint.

I know...it's unethical that i use this .:confused:

[Einion]

The whole difference in our opinions is this: Elitist-type artists can't accept other artist's preferences in paints or materials if they don't line up with their own. I mean, what other evidence is needed to show but some responses on this thread?

Cripes, and you're an art site moderator:eek:
*sigh* Pete, you completely missed the point:

Is it hard for you to accept that a different certain type of paint (that you don't use) works well for other someones?

I turned the sarcastic comment you led off with in post #84 back on you, as was only appropriate given the circumstances. This thread is not just about what Pete uses and thinks is best, any more than it's about what I use and think is best.

And I resent the implication that I am elitist. Given I don't think we need to paint on Belgian linen (often recommending hardboard instead, sized with common polyurethane varnish) I think I'm on completely safe ground in saying that I'm not in the least elitist :lol:

I have made every effort to suggest that there may be at least one specific technical reason for someone to prefer to use artists' acrylics, but not once have I have said that one should not use craft paints at all; I have actually said straight out that it is entirely up to each person what they use, that certain things are important to some painters, that given concerns should not be foisted on anyone else.

I'm going to repeat part of what I said back on page two with emphasis for anyone that missed it or doesn't remember:

Why not use cheap acrylics?
Because you don't want to.
Because it's not the right consistency to do what you want.
Because they don't have sufficient covering power.
Because they might not be as permanent as the paint should be for the kind of work you produce.

Why use cheap acylics?
Because you want to.
Because you like how they paint.
Because you like how they look when dry.
Because lightfastness/permanence is not an issue for you.

Einion

[timelady]

Very interesting discussion, I have to agree with someone earlier that the simple fact of having pigments listed is a deciding factor. I don't see how any paint company could produce product for professional artists *without* that - as they should know we will rely on that information for mixing.

Something that also pops to mind is the relative term "cheap"

I can only explain by taking my chosen brand: Golden. In the UK it's expensive, very expensive. But in the USA it's very cheap! (since it's a US product) Cerulean Blue Deep: 8 oz $29.07 at Dick Blick in the USA, £31.90 in the UK ($53.27).

So Golden in the USA, to me, is CHEAP! :D I try and stock up when I visit.

Tina.

[ArtistPete]

I have actually said straight out that it is entirely up to each person what they use, that certain things are important to some painters, that given concerns should not be foisted on anyone else.




Why use cheap acylics?
Because you want to.
Because you like how they paint.
Because you like how they look when dry.


Einion

Agreed!:thumbsup: Work with what works best for you.

[HankB]

I think artists should use whatever they feel most comfortable with. Depending on your target market you could always get a hi-res scan of your work and sell prints because customers in that market wouldn't be as concerned with the medium. I started painting with student grade paints and upgraded as I grew and as my bank account would allow. My experience over the years is that I prefer the way certain brands of paint handle (Golden and Liquitex, from heavy bodies to liquids).

There are probably artists out there who paint with red, yellow, and blue Koolaid and call it watercolor :D but I wouldn't buy it. I also wouldn't tell them they shouldn't paint with it. To each their own. Paint and let paint.

[davepuls]

I'm a newbie to painting, but I started out with some very cheap non-brand acrylics, which I enjoyed, but several tubes had paint which disintegrated and didn't hold together as a smooth paste.

So I moved on to System 3 student grade acyrlics, and I love these. Wonderful consistency, colours, good information on the labels etc.

After reading about artists acrylics I got a few tubes of Cryla and Golden Heavy body. Amazing colours, but I just found them too heavy bodied for my liking - great for impasto, but a bit too "sticky" for my style of painting. For the moment, I think I'll stick with the System 3, but it would be worth looking into the more fluid artists acrylics if I can find some at a discount price. (And yes, Golden is far too expensive in the UK, so I generally look for British brands like Daler-Rowney and W&N).

[LavenderFrost]

i use folk art and i use soft body liquetex- when i use acrylics as watercolor the folk art perform better-when i do something that needs more thickness- the liquetex or the system 3 works better

That's interesting because I find the Liquitex soft body paints are more fluid than Folkart.

I have used Folkart for a long time, but it was all I could afford and I thought paint was paint. I am now slowly switching to Liquitex.

[Nilesh]

I just returned from a demonstration by a well-known regional acrylic painter whose works sell for upper three to lower four figures. ....Any comments?
If he is selling his work in that price range, it seems to me that he owes his clients something that will last.

He told us that he buys DecoArt Americana acrylic paints from a local craft store at a dollar for a 2 oz jar....He said that he typically spends about a dime in paint for each 16 x 20 painting....
He sounds like a cheapskate.

...a dollar for a 2 oz jar....Any comments?
If he were a *real* cheapskate (like some of us), he would find ways of spending still less, even for professional artist grade paints.

His colors are "chocolate" and "sand" and "wicker". He even uses the Americana white gesso to blend with his colors....
These colors seem like relatively safe choices, at least as far as the lightfastness issue goes.

As far as some of the other issues go, the longevity or archivalness would depend on factors such as the thickness of the paint layers; the mediums used, if any; the level of dilution if water is used; the topcoat(s), if any; the substrates; the preparation of the substrates; the quality of the acrylic binders; the nature of the fillers and other ingredients in the paints; and so on.

I suppose it is worth mentioning that even the very best professional grade paints can fail if they are not used properly -- there can be adhesion problems on some inappropriate or badly prepped substrates, for example; and there are various other potential problems. They are not in themselves a guarantee of quality in the final outcome (which involves additional factors, not just the paints themselves).

Of course, the craft paints will fare no better under these sorts of adverse conditions, and may not fare as well.

I suspect that some of ArtistPete's double-sealed paintings on well-prepped, long-lasting surfaces will outlast many other paintings that are done using lower quality techniques, or shorter lived substrates, however professional paint was when it was in the tube or jar.

Both the techniques or methods used and the substrates will play a role, along with the topcoats or mediums, other conditions, and the paint itself.

It just seems that there are fewer potential concerns and fewer unknowns with good professional grade products.

(It may be worth noting that there is the possibility that some people will take extra care when using the craft paints, to be sure the painting holds up. They may, for example, put very durable topcoats over the painting when it is finished.

While others might be lulled into a false sense of security with the professional artist grade paints, and so use less careful techniques or methods, or be less attentive to these other issues -- thinking that they 'have it covered' by using paints that are seemingly unimpeachable in quality.)

The quality of the artwork itself is certainly an additional factor. Most people would prefer something astonishingly beautiful over something that isn't, even if the materials were not the best.

There can be both, though. Due care can be given to both.


...When I asked him what his clients say about the quality of his paints, he said that his clients love his subject matter (vegetables, fruit, other still life) and do not seem to care what paint he uses. Any comments?
Some clients -- especially non-artists, which most of them are -- just don't know or don't think to ask.

The fact that they don't care is not in itself a good excuse. A pet may not care if you feed it unhealthful food: that doesn't excuse doing so. Why not feed it the best food you can, however clueless it may be?

I would rather give the average clueless buyer of a painting something that will last -- something that is made with quality archival materials throughout -- something that will not let him or her down.

***
Paintings do change hands. I've seen it just recently with someone who died. The paintings are passed on. And they will be passed on yet again after the present owners die.

Paintings change hands in other ways as well.

They are sold on ebay. They are auctioned. Some collectors and investors place considerable value on longevity and non-fading colors.

It is almost impossible to predict who will or will not value the archivalness of a painting, especially decades down the line, when the paintings change ownership, and when multiple owners are involved.

Even a single owner may change over time. Over the years, with more thought and experience and information, he or she may have more awareness of the issues involved, and may prefer something archival.

[Nilesh]

There is another factor here: Some colors simply can't be attained with the craft acrylics.

And some of the single-pigment transparent colors (in the professional lines) are excellent for certain sorts of effects. Some floral painters, for example, highly value these colors and effects; and they would not be possible with inexpensive craft paints.

There are additional pigments that are also unavailable in the inexpensive craft paints. If an artist values using these pigments, it might be a reason not to use them (for certain paintings or passages at least).

Some of the clean-mixing (single-pigment) colors might be hard to find; others would not be available at all.

Those of the desirable pigments that are available (in the craft lines) are not so easy to identify, since they are usually not specified. So in addition to availability issues, there are also identification issues.

On the other hand, it sounds as if some of the craft paints come in an extraordinary array of colors (hundreds). Some of those would not be available (pre-mixed) in the professional lines. These colors might be valued by some artists.

***
This might also come into play at times: Some people get charged up when going against the grain. There are probably artists here and there who derive some vital inspiration from using something they 'aren't supposed to be using.'

There are other sources of inspiration, though. A passion for beauty might be one of them, or for excellent work.

[jcby]

Higher concentration of hue (pigment) in artist grade paints. Ithink it makes a difference when compared to "cheap" paints. I have also found the medium can become unstable (grainy, separating) more quickly with the same paints.

[Nilesh]

When he is selling his paintings for "upper three to lower four figures" (I take this to mean that a thousand dollars wouldn't be unusual for him), why does spending a dime in paint, per picture -- rather than a quarter in paint, or even a dollar in paint -- really matter?

Those, like Richard Schmid and Nicholas Simmons, among other teachers, who point to stinginess with paint as a common tendency and stumbling block, have a point.

[howyadoin]

Wow, lots of rationalization and chips on shoulders in this thread. If you wanna use cheap paint, go right ahead - it's the need to construct such an elaborate system of excuses that baffles me.

[timelady]

Dave - have you tried Lukas paints? They're quite affordable (they have a few different ranges) and you might like them. :) Also jacksonsart.co.uk carries a few "own brand" (they have a name but can't remember) ranges that are also nice, and the consistency isn't as thick as Golden or Liquitex so again they might suit you.

Tina.

[davepuls]

Thanks Tina - I'll have a look. I've got a Jackson's catalogue, so that sounds like a good place to start. However I'm trying to avoid buying too many paints, as I think it's good to take the limited pallet approach and have fun mixing...

[old_hobbyist]

Many replies ago, I started this thread...


Why not use cheap acrylics?
I just returned from a demonstration by a well-known regional acrylic painter whose works sell for upper three to lower four figures. He said he just closed a one-man show in which he sold 8 of his 12 paintings. He told us that he buys DecoArt Americana acrylic paints from a local craft store at a dollar for a 2 oz jar. His colors are "chocolate" and "sand" and "wicker". He even uses the Americana white gesso to blend with his colors. He said that he typically spends about a dime in paint for each 16 x 20 painting. He said that he is entirely happy with these ultracheap paints. When I asked him what his clients say about the quality of his paints, he said that his clients love his subject matter (vegetables, fruit, other still life) and do not seem to care what paint he uses. Any comments?


While I appreciate all the to-and-froing, pushing and shoving on the issue, I think I have a deeper concern. I now do my practice works in cheap=inexpensive=inferior paints, Van Gogh, Liquitex Basic, Marie's. I often buy used paints from eBay. More importantly, because I am just an amateur hobbyist, I usually paint over practice works, done on cheap canvas panels. Not just once, but many times. Once in a great while, I show my stuff at local non-juried arts and crafts fairs, to compete for awards or ribbons and not to sell.

But, someday I might get lucky and do a painting that somebody might actually be interested in buying. Two questions. Some of you advocate telling the customer the exact types of paint used. Should I tell the prospective buyer that I have used cheap paints? More importantly, should I tell the prospective buyer that there are (many) layers of cheap paint beneath the top layer of cheap paint? And that, because of these issues, I cannot guarantee the longevity of the work?

Sorry to prolong this thread but these are real concerns to me. Jim

[Nilesh]

...I think I have a deeper concern. I now do my practice works in cheap=inexpensive=inferior paints, Van Gogh, Liquitex Basic, Marie's. I often buy used paints from eBay. More importantly, because I am just an amateur hobbyist, I usually paint over practice works, done on cheap canvas panels. Not just once, but many times. Once in a great while, I show my stuff at local non-juried arts and crafts fairs, to compete for awards or ribbons and not to sell.

But, someday I might get lucky and do a painting that somebody might actually be interested in buying. Two questions. Some of you advocate telling the customer the exact types of paint used. Should I tell the prospective buyer that I have used cheap paints? More importantly, should I tell the prospective buyer that there are (many) layers of cheap paint beneath the top layer of cheap paint? And that, because of these issues, I cannot guarantee the longevity of the work?

Sorry to prolong this thread but these are real concerns to me. Jim
someday I might get lucky -- this seems like a perfectly valid concern. It could happen.

Why not just use inexpensive paints that are also of higher quality? That would cover both the cost concerns (which for some people seem real and tied to their budgets -- while for other people it seems to be tied to some habit or tendency involving unnecessary, unreasoning, and potentially voluntarily dispensable thriftiness) and the quality concerns.

There seems to be a myth that you have to step down drastically in quality in order to spend less money on paints and other materials.


Should I tell the prospective buyer that I have used cheap paints?

If you have doubts about the materials, it seems to me that the honest thing to do is to be open with them. You wouldn't hide a known defect in something you were selling to someone. The same principle seems to apply to materials of suspect quality or longevity. Honesty and transparency seem to go with integrity here.


More importantly, should I tell the prospective buyer that there are (many) layers of cheap paint beneath the top layer of cheap paint? And that, because of these issues, I cannot guarantee the longevity of the work?

It seems like the honest thing to do.


***
Your situation is a perfect example of why it might be wiser to go with inexpensive materials that are also archival, rather than inexpensive materials that are suspect in some way. Then you wouldn't have to worry about what might happen, how or what to tell prospective buyers about potential defects, etc.

You're putting out a product, in a sense -- why have it be shoddy in some way? It seems better to do something or create something that is completely free of shoddiness.

***
on cheap canvas panels

I have a painting done by a friend on a cheap canvas panel.

This is one of the worst supports I have experienced.

It was a fine painting -- one of her best. But the panel didn't hold up well at all.

It would have been much better if she had painted on quality hardboard (ideally, properly sealed quality hardboard). I wouldn't have been disappointed (which I was); I would still have a beautiful painting that I truly appreciated and valued (and paid for); and my respect for her as an artist, and for her judgment and knowledge of materials, would have remained higher.

And, on top of all that, she would have spent less for the hardboard panels than for the canvas panels.


***
Van Gogh, Liquitex Basic

Some of these paints may be all right, depending in part on the lightfastness ratings.

I truly don't understand why people choose the paints of questionable quality when there are paints of unquestionable quality that can be bought for very reasonable prices. Some of them seem to think they have to do it that way.

You don't have to do it that way.

[Nilesh]

Another reason some artists might not want to use some of these paints is that gallery owners (many of them at least) would frown on the practice of using non-lightfast (or suspectedly non-lightfast) colors. They might also frown on other aspects of some of these paints, and on the paints themselves.

Some of them could be educated, as ArtistPete has done in this thread, to the fact that some of these paints are fine (or probably fine); but some of them might not accept this, and others might still not be very impressed with the choice of paints. In some cases, it may lead to their choosing not to go with having the artist in their gallery.

There are gallery owners who value their own images or reputations, and who might not want to sell items that are not up to a certain level of known and acceptable quality.

The same would apply to the choice of supports or substrates.

There is also an element of the artist's reputation. Although a good artist who chose, for some reason, to use these paints could probably overcome this, it could just as easily end up as something of a negative issue or image (not just with galleries, but with other artists and with clients) that wouldn't be in the best interests of the artist.

[aspenman]

Nilesh - you have put in a nutshell the reason NOT to be CHEAP with your paints or substraights!! What is the saying "Penny wise --- Pound foolish"
If one is not serious about their art work, then yes they should paint crafts with craft paint - it's that simple - you can't skimp and be a professional.
It's not easy to afford the best professional materials in this economy, so slow down and paint less - but never degrade your materials.

[ArtistPete]

If one is not serious about their art work, then yes they should paint crafts with craft paint - it's that simple - you can't skimp and be a professional.

If one's serious about their art their first priority should be their finished product-however you get there is your choice. A lousy painting painted with expensive paint doesn't make it a good painting.:)

Again, paint with what you do best with. Experiment with different brands and price ranged paints. You may find out the costly ones don't work as well as the inexpensive ones or vice versa. Cost isn't a factor to me so I paint with materials that I find works the best for me.

The System 3 tube paints seem about the same consistency as some of the craft-type acrylics such as Folk Art or Delta.

[aspenman]

Those who use cheap materials will continue to do so and as long as they do not sell their work - this is fine. Selling work produced with CHEAP materials is borderline FRAUD - sorry to say. How many times have you bought something "On Sale" only to find it does not last any where near as long as the "More Expensive" named and TESTED brand. Use what you want to use but don't cheat the public - cheating yourself is FINE!

[ArtistPete]

I disagree completely. And I'll repeat this: A lousy painting painted with expensive paint doesn't make it a good painting.

Because a paint cost's less does not mean it is substandard. I have used these craft-type paints for years with no bad experiences. They blend great, apply nicely, and are permanent.

Cheating the public/themselves would be an artist passing him/her self off as a "professional" who produces "amatuer-like" paintings.

If you're a lousy driver....buying a BMW isn't gonna make you a better driver.

How many times have you bought something "On Sale" only to find it does not last any where near as long as the "More Expensive" named and TESTED brand.

I have bought a lot of things on sale to find out i got a great value.

My kids would think those fancy-shmancy hi-end stores at the malls that sell the $90 jeans were better too.....until they smartened up.

[Patrick45]

I learned the lesson of cheap versus quality materials when I was learning to paint with watercolors. That is a medium where the difference between good paper, paints and brushes is very clear as soon as they are used. And the same thing is true for Acrylics.... I use artist's quality paint (Golden and Lascaux) because they make it easier to do the job. And I need all the help I can get! I'm not used to acrylic, and it has been quite a switch from watercolor. So I think the best argument for quality paints is that they do make painting a little bit easier. If they last longer, then great. Who knows what will become of your efforts a century from now?

[Mz_Sketch_Pad]

:lol: here's my 3 cents- i already gave 2:lol: :lol:
if you sell a painting and the buyer asks what you paint it with and they still buy it- to me its on them.
i've seen people make artwork out of perishable items like coffee, chalk, drawings from no.2 pencils,markers on the street and the buyer watches them paint them in the cheaper non-trad material
so if the buyer don't mind i don't mind

[aspenman]

You are 100% right ArtistPete - "A lousy painting painted with expensive paint does not make it a good painting." Entirely different topic than the issue of quality products vs craft products----but if craft paint works for you then continue on - never fix something that is not broken. When you come right down to it all we are all talking about is personal choice and of course integrity. ( of the products. )

[ArtistPete]

Patrick45I learned the lesson of cheap versus quality materials

aspenman the issue of quality products vs craft products


I guess that's where we differ in opinion right there.

I think the craft type liquid acrylics are a quality product.
Again, I've used expensive acrylics and cheap acrylics. I choose to use the craft-type liquid acrylics because of their qualities such as mixing, color blending, consistency, air-brushing and permanence. I think they are a better quality than the more expensive toothpaste acrylics I've used!! Price has nothing to do with my choice at all.

Beatin' a dead horse as they say.

[Roger Evans]

In my opinion, art is transient in nature. I see art produced with tissue paper, string, ribbon, hair, dust, all kinds of different paints, mixed media, etc. Which begs the question: If you use mixed media, do you give the buyer a spread sheet that indicates which parts of the painting are likely to outlast the other parts of the painting?

Again, I really do not understand the overall concern about which acrylics last longer and why it is important to tell the buyer what you used. First off, even if you told the buyer that you used Brand X instead of Brand A, I seriously doubt they would know what you are talking about. Second, even the cheapest acrylic paint I have ever seen lasts longer than the best oils. Third, do people in the oils forums have discussions about the short longevity of their medium? Do they tell a buyer that the painting, because it is painted in oils, is likely to crack, discolor and darken over time? I seriously doubt it.

This all seems like much ado about nothing. At least to me! :)

Roger

[aspenman]

I guess that's where we differ in opinion right there.

I think the craft type liquid acrylics are a quality product.
Again, I've used expensive acrylics and cheap acrylics. I choose to use the craft-type liquid acrylics because of their qualities such as mixing, color blending, consistency, air-brushing and permanence. I think they are a better quality than the more expensive toothpaste acrylics I've used!! Price has nothing to do with my choice at all.

Beatin' a dead horse as they say.

Just what I finished saying ArtistPete - if craft acrylics work for you in the manner you want them to work for you - keep on going Bro - no need to change it's all about personal choice.

[ArtistPete]

Roger--great post (I checked your gallery too---wow--awesome work!)

aspenman--I think we both agree then....at least on your last post.:thumbsup:

[Nilesh]

One way to approach the issue of longevity's significance more objectively would be to survey a few -- or more than a few -- gallery owners, and simply ask them (preferably in a non-leading way) whether or not archivalness is important to them.

Questions could also be asked about the other end of the spectrum -- not just about how they feel about archival paintings, but also about how they would feel about having non-archival colors, substrates, and other materials in their galleries' paintings.

A substantial percentage of them would express preference for pigments and other materials that are archival.

*Very* few -- at best -- would prefer the short-lived, non-archival work.

The same sorts of questions could be asked of clients or potential clients or owners.

Again, a substantial percentage would almost certainly prefer something lasting.

An overwhelming percentage would prefer *not* to have something that will fade or deteriorate sooner rather than later.

How many people (whether they are gallery owners, or potential clients, or others who might be involved in some way with the artwork -- assuming it is something beautiful and appealing to them --, as owners, viewers, collectors, housemates, relatives, visitors, museum staff, investors, or other enjoyers of) would prefer something short-lived to something long-lived?

[Roger Evans]

One way to approach the issue of longevity's significance more objectively would be to survey a few.........

How many people (whether they are gallery owners, or potential clients, or others who might be involved in some way with the artwork -- assuming it is something beautiful and appealing to them --, as owners, viewers, collectors, housemates, relatives, visitors, museum staff, investors, or other enjoyers of) would prefer something short-lived to something long-lived?

Of course everyone would prefer as long a life as possible but galleries don't seem to be concerned at all about the lack of longevity of oils. Indeed, galleries ironically prefer oils over acrylics, despite acrylics obvious longer lifespan. So, relative to your poll, what defines "short-lived"? If oils will start to fade and change within 50 years, which they are often known to do, so what if one acrylic brand lasts 100 years or another lasts 120 years? Not being purposely argumentative but, in the larger picture, isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Roger

[old_hobbyist]

Okay, you folks have convinced me. I've decided to attach the following to the back of each and every practice work, just in case I get lucky. Thanx for all your advice...

Dear Art Patron,

The painting you have purchased is in acrylic painted on student quality canvas panel. The canvas has been gessoed and may have been pre-toned with Benjamin-Moore Indoor Acrylic house paint. I have used the following student acrylic paints – Liquitex Basic, Van Gogh/Amsterdam, Marie’s. I have used gesso white rather than tube titanium white. I use Chinese bristle brushes so the painting may contain rogue brush hairs. Because I reuse older paintings, there may be one or more paintings beneath the top painting. Because of these factors, I cannot guarantee the longevity of this work. I will refund your money if you find your painting deteriorating in any way within my lifetime.

[Nilesh]

Okay, you folks have convinced me. I've decided to attach the following to the back of each and every practice work, just in case I get lucky. Thanx for all your advice...

Dear Art Patron,

The painting you have purchased is in acrylic painted on student quality canvas panel. The canvas has been gessoed and may have been pre-toned with Benjamin-Moore Indoor Acrylic house paint. I have used the following student acrylic paints – Liquitex Basic, Van Gogh/Amsterdam, Marie’s. I have used gesso white rather than tube titanium white. I use Chinese bristle brushes so the painting may contain rogue brush hairs. Because I reuse older paintings, there may be one or more paintings beneath the top painting. Because of these factors, I cannot guarantee the longevity of this work. I will refund your money if you find your painting deteriorating in any way within my lifetime.
This seems like a good honest way to connect with people. They will appreciate the human connection. Some will no doubt wonder about your own expected longevity. But there is a certain aspect of mortality and honesty and humor that seems good there.

[Nilesh]

Of course everyone would prefer as long a life as possible but galleries don't seem to be concerned at all about the lack of longevity of oils. Indeed, galleries ironically prefer oils over acrylics, despite acrylics obvious longer lifespan. So, relative to your poll, what defines "short-lived"? If oils will start to fade and change within 50 years, which they are often known to do, so what if one acrylic brand lasts 100 years or another lasts 120 years? Not being purposely argumentative but, in the larger picture, isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Roger
Interesting questions.

[aspenman]

Roger--great post (I checked your gallery too---wow--awesome work!)

aspenman--I think we both agree then....at least on your last post.:thumbsup:

:clap: Yes, I think we do agree that what products are used is a personal thing and what works for one person may not work for another person. The main thing is one is happy and proud of what he or she produces.:thumbsup:

[Einion]

The mods feel this thread has run its course and this is a great place to close it.

Thanks for the contributions everyone!

Einion