Acrylic Canvas

[kelly]

I am about to inherit some large canvas' that have acrylic paintings on them. Some are painted heavily and some have a tonal smear of paint on them. What steps would everyone recommend I take to ensure the oil paints will adhere as best possible?

[LaPetiteJehanne]

I've never had any problems with oil paint adhering to dry acrylic paint--in fact, I often do my underpainting in acrylic, so that it'll dry faster and allow me to get right to work.

Patience has never been a virtue of mine....

[arcitect]

Acrylic films are highly flexible, oil films are not so very flexible. Some caution should be practised when working in larger scales in oils on acrylic grounds. Adhereing the canvas to a rigid support, such as masonite or quality ply-wood is a good idea for anything over 2'x3'. This practise brings up an issue of weight, as masonite and such can get very heavy as the scale increases -especially if you cradle the board (which you really should!).

A little light sanding can not hurt either.

[sgtaylor]

Ok... excuse me for being the worry-wort, but in the words of Harrison Ford, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

The acrylic paint underneath will eventually show through the oil paint on top. "Eventually" may be a number of years, or a number of months, depending on numerous factors.

I suppose you could sand them flat, re-prime with acrylic gesso, and go on from there, but I don't know.

The whole thing gives me the creeps.

[kelly]

Let me add infor I omitted previously. This is stretched canvas ranging from 3ft x 4ft to 4 x 5ft. Some has very heavy acrylic on it(which I am skeptical about using) and some has a light amount of acrylic. Either way, I am interested in what arc said about sanding and redoing a gesso coat on top of the sanded acrylic. Whaddayathink?

[LaPetiteJehanne]

Hear hear!

[paintfool]

I have sanded down a few oil paintings for re-use. It'll only work if the paint is not too thick. Then og course prime them well. Since the gesso i use for priming is acrylic i see no reason why Kelly can't re-use these. Hey, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But i say go for it! Cheryl

[arcitect]

Let me tell you about my palette. I have this masonite drawingboard, you know the kind -has a handle cut out of it and has two bulldog clips attached, comes with a giant rubberband? Yeah, that one! So, I have this 24"x36"-ish drawing board I use as a palette.

I do not clean my palette, as that seems like a savage thing to do -I just rub any leftover paint all over so it dries faster. Occasionally, I coat it with some liquin to speed matters up a bit. I have been doing this for over ten years, my palette is a paint film logistics NIGHTMARE.

Fat over lean, lean over fat, oil over acrylic, acrylic over oil -a touch of polyurethane paints in there- and excessively thinned paints have all piled up over the years to form a bizarre "could-not-do-it-if-I-tried" paintfilm, which may very well be bulletproof!

My point? Well, all the rules are good to follow, but I see no need to get paranoid about them. It is better to create a great work than an ever lasting pre-fabricated artifact of mediocrity. Some legitimate risk taking can be a good thing.

It is better to paint on what you have available than to not paint because some conservators want everything to last forever. Even if they fall apart two days after you are done, you learned about painting on a larger scale without having to face the white wall or fret over expense.
That is no small matter!

[Mark St.-C]

Kelly, couldn't you just untack the canvas from the stretcher bars, flip it over and tack it down again on its raw side? Avoid the whole painting-over issue altogether?

[LaPetiteJehanne]

That's a great idea!

[kelly]

All very good ideas! Regarding flipping the canvas....that is probably the best idea. However, Im intrigued with the texture on the existing canvas and also the idea of painting over a friends painting. So, I guess Im gonna sand it down and then put some more gesso over the acrlic. Hope it lasts till next week. Arc, could you drop us a visual of that monster palette someday!

[arcitect]

Originally posted by kelly:
Arc, could you drop us a visual of that monster palette someday!

It doesn't look too interesting, it is mostly a dull muddy grey -as you might expect.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

[paintfool]

speaking of Arcs muddy grey pallete, & this probably belongs under Studio Tips, i've been using a nuetral grey ceramic tile, glazed of course. It's 12"X12" & cost less than $2.00 at Home Depot. It makes for a great pallete. The grey color helps me determine my tonal values & since it is a glazed (shiney) tile, it is easy to scrape tha paint off with a razor blade. It is a bit heavy though & is best suited for sitting down, but i do stand with it occasionaly & have developed some muscle tone in my left arm... http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Cheryl

[esartstudio]

Well Acrylic paint is acrylic paint no matter if it a complete painting or acrylic gesso.

There should be no problem painting over this type of surface except for any texture of the painting that is underneath.

Scraping and much sanding will help get rid of this. Though it will probably never completely go away.

The thought of flipping the canvas over and re-priming it is a fine way to use the canvas again.

Why use the same ground when you can use the raw side of the canvas as a new support?

Using the raw side of the canvas will also let you put an oil ground on the canvas, which will provide a much different surface for painting.

If you havent tried an oil ground to paint on before you are in for quite a shock!

If you like to get effects similar to the paintings you see in museums, an oil ground is very important to have.

There is no acrylic gesso on any of the canvases you see in the museums, except paintings painted within the last 30-40 years or so.

Preparation is such an important part of painting, many people do not take the time they should to properly preapre their surface.

It separates painting from drawing...all the different materials and preparation needed before you begin.

Sincerely,
Ethan Semmel
===================================
Learn the Secrets of Oil Painting (http://www.esartstudio.com/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=oilpainta)
===================================

[rhoward]

It sounds like the only thing worth salvaging are the stretcher bars. Are we trying to save a few pence by painting on crappy canvas or going through the almost impossible task of flipping over a five foot tall canvas that's painted and hoping there's enough of an edge to grab with stretching pliers (they cost more than the cost of a new canvas).

After all of this false economy, we are left with an unknown quantity and a bad surface onto which to paint. So we've saved a few bucks. Seeing as money is so tight that we've gone through all this effort, how are we going to afford to pay for the paint to cover the canvas. That's vastly more expensive that most canvas.

This discussion makes absolutely no economic or technical sense. Cut the old junk off and, if they are any good, save the stretchers. What you have now are cancas sizes and shapes picked by someone else -- obviously unworkable shapes and sizes or they would have been tossed out.

Better yet; start with some sizes and shapes that suit SOME OF YOUR OWN IDEAS and maybe (dare I mention it) make a sketch or two before choosing the canvas size and shape. Then you can buy or make stretcher bars and stretch the canvas. At this point, you can even try doing it the best way known -- using rabbitskin sizing and white lead oil ground.

Just think of the feeling of pride you'll have in not painting on someone else's leavings. That's a great way to start a painting.

------------------
Cennini Catalogue http://studioproducts.com/quickcatalog/catalogframes.html

[Mark St.-C]

Saving a few pence is usually a good idea. Saving rupees is also wise, as is saving deutschemarks, sestertii, simoleons...

If I chucked out every canvas or board that I wasn't happy with, I'd single handedly create a landfill that would rival Everest. Resuscitating a dead canvas is noble work.

Every artist has to start with something. It might be a vague thought, or a scribble, or a glimpse of sasquatch peeking out from behind a bush... or, it might be an already existing work of art, or even a pre-existing shape. What difference does it make? Limiting variables is a great way to work.

Painting over someone elses topography sounds like a healthy challenge to me. One of Rauschenberg's cooler ideas was his Erased DeKooning Drawing.

Starting with a fresh, white canvas is obviously not always the key to success - the canvases Kelly has been given were fresh and white at one time, afterall.

Kelly - don't listen to Mr. Chuckitout... do the canvases proud!

- S

[rhoward]

Originally posted by Mark St.-C:
don't listen to Mr. Chuckitout... do the canvases proud!

From a selfish perspective, I appreciate people offering advice like this because it guarantees that yet another soul will be out of competition. Competition is stiff enough and any time someone offers particularly damaging advice is one more artist remove from the race. I thank you and my accountant thanks you.


------------------
Cennini Catalogue http://studioproducts.com/quickcatalog/catalogframes.html

[This message has been edited by rhoward (edited August 11, 2000).]

[paintfool]

Mr. Chuckitout, the original question, i believe, is how can he make good use of this discarded canvas. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Cheryl

[pixelscapes]

As pragmatically harsh as rhoward's analysis might be, allow me to quote Kelly and point out that there's more to this than saving money:

Originally posted by kelly:
Im intrigued with the texture on the existing canvas and also the idea of painting over a friends painting.

Sounds to me like there's a sense of creative intrigue here, and as such I'd have to say: Kelly. Go for it. Enjoy yourself.

I also don't think it necessarily "guarantees that another soul will be out of the competition", at all. I'm someone who is really big on keeping work archival, but that doesn't mean I disqualify anybody who wants to explore their questionably archival inspiration -- I just think they should be aware of what they're doing, and obviously, Kelly is.

-=- Jen "This isn't surgery" Pixelscapes

[rhoward]

Originally posted by paintfool:
Mr. Chuckitout, the original question, i believe, is how can he make good use of this discarded canvas. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Cheryl

Has it ever struck you that, despite having the very best of intentions, you simply cannot polish mud?

If you really, realy want to make life difficult for a beginning painter, give him crappy materials...or even better, half-dried paints, splayed brushes and discarded canvases. Oh yes, donm't forget to include a dollop of your very best wishes and a firm pat on the back. That will magically transform all of that crippling garbage into pure gold.

[arcitect]

rhoward is dogmatic-ly an academy painter. As far as academy rules are concerned, he is right. No arguments to be had.

However, the academy is not the be all, end all of art -no matter how rhoward feels!

His advice is good, but it must be taken in context. The academy collapsed over 100 years ago, for many reasons...excessive adherence to tradition and fear of technology being considerable undermining elements.

Technically he is 100% correct IF you want to paint like Cassat -if not, give a listen, take what is useful, and throw out what is not.

[arcitect]

For the record, rhoward and I disagree very strongly about what art is about, what it is for, and how it is to be practised.

However, we do agree (or so it seems) about certain principles. These include such ideas as you should ALWAYS use the best materials available to you (though we may disagree about just what that means). Ideally, you should use top grade materials for everything. Not because they are "archival", but because they work and make painting easier.

Painting over another artist's canvas is a game. It is just for fun. The work may end up being great, but it really is just for fun.

[rhoward]

Originally posted by arcitect:
rhoward is dogmatic-ly an academy painter.

Gee, anything but. My initial training was with Hans Hoffmann. After that was more than thirty years as an illustrator, and we use ever non-academic trick in the book. However, there are certain immutable facts of life -- gravity always brings us to ground and no matter what your personal beliefs, if you step off a tall building, you will accelerate directly toward the center of the planet as a prescribed rate of speed.

There are certain immutable facts of life concerning painting and all I do is reiterate those. If there are variations of which I might be aware, I cite those too. I do not deal in fun, deep innner expression of personal feelings, the deep inner meaning of a work of art. Perhaps too many years of living by the brush creates a different feeling than one would have when armed with incomplete knowledge but a vague concept of how things should be in an ideal world.

The artists best qualified to carry the banner of "academician" do those portraits of people who look uncomfortable and ready to lurch to the nearest rest room or still lifes and landscapes that we've all seen a hundred times before. Ah, but their painful attention to detail, painfully rendered, should not surprise when it's also painful to look at. I, on the other hand, am always in a hurry to get onto the next project (yes, I do have more than one or two ideas a year) and begin portraits with a 3" housepainters brush and have yet to find a use for a round sable brush. Hardly the academician of which you speak.

The confusion may arise when you look at a small reproduction of a 6 foot-tall painting and assume that it's meticulously smoothed out like a balloon skin. Yeah, the illusions are spot on, but I don't labor over them. I am not confused between what is paint and what is flesh, or cloth or grass or fur. I make flat illusions designed to deceive the eye into thinking that there's actually some space at the picture plane. It's the complete opposite of natural and Nature. It's art, as in ARTificial.



------------------
Cennini Catalogue http://studioproducts.com/quickcatalog/catalogframes.html

[Mark St.-C]

Kelly, please USE the canvases.

The very fact that you've posted this question here is proof of your professional attitude. So help me, I swear on Stalin's grave, that if you take sensible precautions, and if you have half the aptitude that I think you have, you will turn those lumpy canvases into something great, and something that will NOT crumble away.

When you sell them, just be upfront with the buyer about your technique.

RESPECT THE RULES, but don't get constipated on them. Do the canvases proud.

[paintfool]

Originally posted by Mark St.-C:
Kelly, please USE the canvases.
RESPECT THE RULES, but don't get constipated on them. Do the canvases proud.

Mark, thanks for the backup! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/biggrin.gif:
Cheryl

[arcitect]

I sincerely apologize for the slander, as to call anyone an academician unjustly is indeed a slander.

My initial training was with Hans Hoffmann.

What was that like? Did he make more sense in person?

After that was more than thirty years as an illustrator

Perhaps the foundation of our seeming philosophical schizm.

gravity always brings us to ground and no matter what your personal beliefs, if you step off a tall building, you will accelerate directly toward the center of the planet as a prescribed rate of speed.

(32 feet/second)/second

Perhaps too many years of living by the brush creates a different feeling than one would have when armed with incomplete knowledge but a vague concept of how things should be in an ideal world.

I suspect given a hundred years we would always disagree on the objective of a work, and probably seldom on the means required to achieve that objective.

Hardly the academician of which you speak.

Standing humble-y corrected.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

[arcitect]

I still say Kelly should paint on them.

Fun is fun.

The worst that can happen is you will learn that it is a hassle. However, you may find that it is conducive to your creative methods.

It always most important to meet your own goals and objectives first, as all the rest is just noise.

[paintfool]

<FONT COLOR="Red">AND</FONT c>you wouldn't want to see me going to my grave whimpering<FONT face="Impact">paint the darned thing KELLY!!!</FONT f>.......would ya?
Cheryl

[This message has been edited by paintfool (edited August 15, 2000).]

[rhoward]

What was that like? Did he make more sense in person?

I was a kid (16) in Provincetown and I think his youngest student. He had me think in broader pictorial terms whilst working in a smaller space. He also seriously handicapped my already facile approach by making me work with children's poster paints on 8x10 pieces of paper. The idea was to make BIG pictures on the small paper without resorting to all the tricks. It was good practice. The best part was that I got to hang out with a lot of the abstract expressionists and be on their softball team.

Perhaps the foundation of our seeming philosophical schizm.

I fail to see how painting on commission is different from painting on commission. I was doing the same thing al the masters did...search out a client who had a project to be done and aggrandize whatever it was that he wanted to communicate. Although he was a keen horse breeder, Michelangelo didn't paint horses on the Sistine ceiling. He painted what the Pope said to paint. How is that different from painting a nice smile on the St. Pauli Girl or a crowd of people admiring a Chevrolet? How is painting a group of insurance executives much different from Rembrandt's painting of the Syndics? Whether the work is good or not is another matter, but taken by itself, modern day illustration is only looked down upon by those with no sense of history and even less knowledge of illustration. It's not painting highlights on baked beans and we use the same critical and creative faculties to solve problems as did the painters of yore. The biggest difference in most people's minds is that, because it's the highest paid profession in the world, that somehow we're prostituting our talents by ignoring oblivion and not waiting tables or having a "day job" to support the hobby of painting.

I love painting. I wanted to do it all the time, not work at another job and come home to it. That it provided me with a comfortable life is no worse than the comfortable life that Rembrandt, Rubens, Michelangelo, Van Dyck, Velasquez, Sargent and 99% of all great artists enjoyed. This has always been a field in which true talent was rewarded with the coin of the realm.

Of course if you have problems with making money, that's another story.


I suspect given a hundred years we would always disagree on the objective of a work, and probably seldom on the means required to achieve that objective.

If you were honest about what art has always been in the historical context, we would not disagree. If you agree with the approach Rembrandt and Rubens took, you'd have to agree with the one that I take because, like those men and their times, it is just as honest TO MY TIMES. I am a 21st century painter who makes pictures that attempt to reflect a time in which movies, videos, computer graphics, fluorescent colors, interference colors, offset printing, TV commercials, Rap, Rock and Roll, backward baseball caps, SUVs, jet planes, outboard motors, fast foods and supermarkets dominate every moment of our lives. If I painted like some 17th century geezer, I'd be as false as if I ran around dressed like a Roman centurion wearing armor and carrying a broadsword. They'd lock me up. Yet we are more benign when some deluded fool wants to revive some long past century and adopt it aesthetics. Those aesthetics worked well in candle light on dark fumed oak panels but they fail miserably when subjected to the bright artificial lights and smooth plastered walls in which we now live.

I suspect that if you are honest with yourself as to where the here and now is, you'd agree with me. If, however, like Miniver Cheevy (who "bemoaned his fate, for he was born four hundred years too late") you yearn for those thrilling days of yesteryear, when out of the past came the thundering hooves of the great horse Silver...you might find yourself at odds with my” philosophy" (hey if corporations can have one, why not me?) http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/tongue.gif



------------------
Cennini Catalogue http://studioproducts.com/quickcatalog/catalogframes.html

[arcitect]

Okay, I started this mess by shooting my mouth off, so it only seems fair that I extend to you the last word. Continuing this thread any further poses the potential to establish both of us as world class bores.

Your next post is the last word....

[LarrySeiler]

Acrylic gesso...and acrylic paints are two different things. Gesso has a number of additive ingredients (such as marbel dust) that helps it to retain a porous absorbitive nature. On the other hand...acrylic paints when dry are impervious and nonabsorbitive. IN essence, dry acrylics are plastic.

I have a number of peers in the wildlife genre whom entered their fields with an illustration background. In the commercial field where immediacy is required for account deadlines, painting oils over acrylics is often practiced. The commercial demand concerns itself little with archival properties.

One such individual that represented a well known publisher and I had a fairly indepth conversation about it. His main interests were the prints that were made from the original...yet he would sell the originals. We are speaking thousands of dollars.

I asked him what his reaction was to the fact that in many such paintings, you can take your thumbnail and scrape the dry oil paint off. He just shrugged, after all...his was a total utilitarian approach.

Now...some artists do some underpainting with acrylics...but add so much water such that it remains in a watercolor wash state.

As such...the washes absorbed in the porous nature of gesso may yet leave enough surface not wholly sealed by enough acrylic pigment so as to make it impervious. But...why take the risk? Well...that is unless you take a strictly utilitarian stance and could care less about the patron buying the original.

Larry http://lseiler.artistnation.com

[rhoward]

Larry, if you examine the surface of an acrylic gesso you'll see little crystaline structures rising above the surface. These can be sanded smooth but they are important in holding the paint onto the support. That's largely a mechanical adhesion, similar to the way you'd cling to the side of a cliff by you fingernails. In effect, the surface is like a mini-sandpaper. That accounts for the terrific damage that acrylic grounds do to brushes.

Gesso (the real stuff, made with Rabbitskin glue and Whiting) is just the reverse, can be sanded and actually absorbs the first layer of paint deep into the surface.

------------------
Cennini Forum http://studioproducts.com/forum/forum.html

[This message has been edited by rhoward (edited August 16, 2000).]

[kelly]

Thanks for an amazing range of responses. Ive learned a bit from all the posts.

Will the acrylic gesso(not the real stuff RHoward mentions) adhere to the acrylic? I am considering adding some gesso on top of the acrylic paint to give it some tack.

[LarrySeiler]

I've blocked out areas of work before with acrylic gesso and repainted an area.....

I'm sure it would work.

Curious Rhoward about the rabbitskin if you, or anyone else has heard of late what I've heard. I thought of trying it to adhere canvas to board...or sizing canvas...but, lately some studies show that a bacteria likes to feed on the rabbitskin glue. That in fact, the glue, (being rabbit) is a protein that certain bacteria and enzymes feed upon. Anyone else hear this???

Larry

[paintfool]

Actually Larry, i've been in the janitorial service for a lot of years and i do know that protein stains in carpeting show signs of wear before the rest of the carpet so i'd say yes, it is a possibilty.
Cheryl

[rhoward]

Originally posted by lseiler:
bacteria likes to feed on the rabbitskin glue.

That is a problem. The glues that we handle (we sell three different types) all have a tiny amount of bacteria and fungi preventing agent in them. That holds it back pretty well. Additionally, I like to harden my gesso and glue by spraying with an alum solution. Formalin is even better but I don't like the smell. Between the bug killers in the glues and the hardening, I have never encountered problems. That doesn't mean that they would fare as well in Panama or other hot, moist climate.



------------------
Cennini Forum http://studioproducts.com/forum/forum.html

[Elisabeth]

I used to paint over the top of my mistakes too until an instructor informed me that over time - 100 years or so, oil paint becomes transparent. There are several cases of old masters where it is now apparent that the artist changed his mind and altered the painting before completion. I.e. a horse now has 6 legs instead of four and a young girl's head has grown considerably etc. So even if I won't be here in person 100 years from now, I certainly don't want my mistakes coming to the surface! It's not worth it just to save a few $$. I agree with the guy who said save the stretcher bars and get some new canvas and re-stretch it. Or use it for a practice canvas.

[arcitect]

Why not just use PVA in place of organic glues?

[Painter]

Two comments.1. I was reading last night in Mayer and Go(?). One of them suggested Mythel Acrolite? in place of rabbitskin glue and gave some valid reasons. 2. I used to do the whole nine yards, size and white lead. The only thing I have found that comes close is Polyflax canvas which Fredricks sells.

A third thought. I believe that the illustrator training is much more useful than that usually given "fine" artists.

------------------
God Blesses!
Ched

[AIGottlieb]

originally posted by Painter:

I believe that the illustrator training is much more useful than that usually given "fine" artists.

Um, would you care to elaborate on that? I've received both: my illustration training at RIT and my fine art training at the Florence Academy of Art. Although I found my time at RIT helpful, four years of it equalled one week at the Academy.




[This message has been edited by AIGottlieb (edited September 10, 2000).]

[paintfool]

Kelly, I was wondering what you decided on this?
Cheryl

[kelly]

Just to let all know I began gessoing over those old acrylic canvas's a couple of weeks ago. Worked on several of them this morning. I am conscious of what I am doing and think it is important I disclose my procedure. But, onward and upward.

[Painter]

Gottlieb: My feeling is that most current fine arts programs are so intimidated by the possibilities that the teachers mostly serve as cheerleaders.

Illustrators know what they are doing or are "supposed" to do, so they still teach. The only teaching fine arts program are those who severly limit what they teach, but they do teach something.



------------------
God Blesses!
Ched

[AIGottlieb]

Let's make sure that we're on the same page here. Please give me an example of a fine arts program, meaning which university, academy, age, program, etc. etc. etc.

[wanderfast]

This was a very good thread if you wanna learn some stuff about oil over acyrlic.

[357 Mag]

My point? Well, all the rules are good to follow, but I see no need to get paranoid about them.


My sentiment exactly. This forum propagates paranoia. If you look long and hard enough, you may convince yourself that there is in fact something under your bed.

[rhoward]

Originally posted by 357 Mag:
If you look long and hard enough, you may convince yourself that there is in fact something under your bed.


I don't need to look that hard. There are four snoring Bulldogs under my bed.


------------------
Cennini Forum http://studioproducts.com/forum/forum.html