Re: Gum and Photogravure, was: varnishes
Umm, I'm not sure that's exactly what I said (first line) but I guess
the point remains the same: what I meant to say was that only where
the pigment has penetrated the paper fibres can a watercolor painting
be considered permanent. Any part of the painting where, as you say
"watercolor pigments remain suspended in the gum and sit on the
surface of the paper" without staining the paper fibres, that part of
the painting will remain completely soluble in water. Perhaps we
need to check if we're going by the same definition of permanent, but
in my definition, an artwork that's water-soluble, in part or whole,
doesn't qualify.
I proved this to myself once when I became enamored of painting with
watercolor paints with gum added (I'm a painter too); I loved the
luscious organic sheen that the added gum imparted to the surface,
until one day I recovered my wits and remembered (d'oh) one of the
basic principles of gum printing: dried gum arabic is soluble in
water. Just to check, I ran a wet brush across one of these
paintings that I'd done several months before, and sure enough, the
painting dissolved wherever the water touched it. That was the end
of my "gum-painting" period. I didn't consider those paintings
permanent enough to keep or show, and I washed the paint off the paper.
I said before that I don't have any information to bring to bear on
the relative permanence of a gum printing compared to a watercolor
painting, meaning a watercolor painting that consists of pigment
staining paper. But I think it makes perfect sense to hypothesize
that a gum printing, consisting of hardened, insoluble gum, is
probably more permanent than a watercolor painting, any part of which
consists of pigment suspended in soluble gum arabic.
Katharine
On Nov 17, 2008, at 6:37 AM, SusanV wrote:
In regard to watercolor paintings... not true that the paint stains
the paper and is permanent if the gum is washed out. Many
watercolor pigments remain suspended in the gum and sit on the
surface of the paper. Only some of the pigments actually stain the
paper, and even in those cases if you wash the paint from the
surface, the color lightens considerably due to the removal of the
top layer of gum/pigment. Having been primarily a watercolor
painter for quite a few years, quite a few years ago... I have a
lot of experience that includes removal of color from areas both
large and small while developing a painting. In fact, terms used
by watercolor painters include "staining" and "non-staining" colors.
As to the discussion about the permanence of printmaking ink on
paper... that is something I have always wondered about myself.
Why is is ok to use oil based ink on paper for an etching, but not
when "painting"? Rembrandt's etchings are what... over 300 years
old? It must have to do with the smaller percentage of oil in ink
when compared to oil "paint".
susan
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Katharine Thayer
<kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:
" In the case of watercolor paintings, the image is made of what
we in gum printing would call "pigment stain;" it's comprised of
pigment which has penetrated the fibers of the paper and colored
(stained) them permanently. The gum arabic is only there to serve
as a vehicle for the pigment, and its presence in the painting is
essentially irrelevant; at any rate after diluting the paint from
the tube with water in the typical watercolor painting, there's
very little gum arabic in the painting. You could soak most
traditional watercolor paintings in water and dissolve the
remaining gum arabic without affecting the painting in any material
way."
--
susan
gravure blog at www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com
website www.dalyvoss.com
|