From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/22/03-11:37:24 AM Z
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> . I think Judy is confusing "covering power" with
> intensity of color, which is a whole different issue.
In my experience the INTENSE color of the paint in a tube called indigo
has all the covering power usable in gum -- whatever you call it. And
perhaps, what's that word "geesh?" (a corruption of "jesus" of course) I
repeat my point that IN MY EXPERIENCE covering power is not a factor of
either transparent or opaque, ceertainly not those qualities alone, rather
a factor of the pigment or dye itself.
As for Katherine's claim that "The "real" indigo was actually made from
the inksacs of squid, and Judy's right that it hasn't been used in paint
for a long time, but that has nothing to do with this discussion..... "
and her fear that I would gloat over the careless mistake -- no, I
wouldn't, anyone can make a mistake or just get confused momentarily.
BUT, far from having "nothing to do with this discussion," the point has
in fact EVERYTHING to do with this discussion, which BEGAN please note
when Katherine in her constant eagerness to correct me (well it is
flattering, albeit a nuisance) "corrected" my statement that "real indigo"
is no longer available.... The whole entire confounded Indigo wars
(conceivably not a highlight of September science) stemmed from that. To
ignore such invidious miscorrection would be to leave the misinformation
of the false correction uncorrected -- in case 3 people were reading to
the bitter end.
And another BUT -- re the "obscurity" of my source for the spelling
Indanthrene -- tut tut.... Doerner was probably the main authority on
artist's materials in Europe until the end of the century (20th that is).
Not as well known in this country as Mayer, but at midcentury probably of
equal stature. And for one who is interested in "the techniques of the
old masters" probably still outstanding & unique (tho I don't know if
it's been re-issued as Mayer has in an updated edition or two).
And finally, BUT #3: I wasn't claiming either spelling -- simply noting
the incidence of both... That is, hoping to add to the sum total of
knowledge, which can, as one may infer, be an uphill struggle in these
parts.
As for Brahma's assertion that he uses "real indigo" -- I would believe it
of Brahma, but has he found a secret source??? The "Colors" book shows a
photograph of the wretching natives in a pit of indigo (I think it was
indigo -- better check!) The "real" is also very fadeworthy -- Tell us it
isn't so, Brahma !
Judy
> As to how indanthrone is spelled and pronounced, I've only ever seen it
> the one way; if there's some obscure text somewhere that spells it
> another way fine, but I'll spell it the way my trusted sources (and that
> doesn't include Wilcox, by the way) spell it and the way Daniel Smith
> spells it on my tube of indanthrone.
>
> But your rejoinder misses my whole point, which still stands. It's true
> that back in the BEFORE time there was another indigo pigment; I've
> spoken about this at length a year or two ago, either here or on the
> Bostick & Sullivan site, or both. But in 1883, a synthetic indigo was
> developed that was thought (wrongly, it turned out) to be more permanent
> than the original indigo. This synthetic indigo, PB66, is the fugitive
> pigment that we have called indigo for the last hundred years. And that
> indigo is NOT indanthrone, and I've never confused it with indanthrone.
> That's the point; all this other stuff is red herrings and smoke and
> straw persons.
> Katharine Thayer
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST