I have to ask, maybe I'm missing something, but my own admittedly limited experience leaves me unable to understand things like this: "...when your strengthening paint is really dark and really flowing" and "strengthening paint is as unlike tracing paint or undercoating paint as it is possible to be" and "flooding paint must be runny." If I start with what I'll call a "standard lump" consisting of pigment and gum arabic and water or glycol or some liquid or other, then the only way I know of to change how it goes on the glass (light, dark, runny, whatever) is to vary the amount of liquid I add to it. When I make it "really flowing" for example, it's automatically not "really dark." If I make it runny enough to stay wet while flooding a large empty area, then (again in my limited experience) it's too thin, i.e. doesn't have enough pigment, to be opaque in one coat, at least not consistently across the whole flooded area. Do I just need to practice more, or is there actually some difference in the lump itself, or have I just not found the sweet spot where every physical property of the paint comes together in a fine balancing act?
It's so helpful to hear about your experience, because it did not occur to us that we had failed to explains matters properly here. This is such a jolt in a way, that I can't put things right in this reply.
First of all, and to be clear, unless we say otherwise, all the demonstrations are performed with a "standard" lump of glass paint, composed of pigment, gum Arabic and water.
Second, when we undercoat, trace, strengthen, and flood: this is all done with the same "standard" lump of paint.
I know you know this already, but, for the benefit of other readers I'll stress there must be sufficient gum Arabic in the paint. I'm not saying it's not possible to otherwise make all the consistencies (undercoat, trace, flood etc.). Just that, when you or anyone practising starts with the same "standard" paint as we do, then it's easier to solve problems.
We'll soon be having a longer look at how to soften highlights: this will be important because this is a wonderful technique for discovering how much gum Arabic your standard lump contains, whether it likely contains a similar quantity to ours.
Gum is important because it helps bind water and pigment together. As we've commented in other places, it functions like a coagulant. And I do wonder if some difficulties with flooding might be solved by adding more gum. That is, my immediate thought is that there is some significant difference between our lumps of paint.
To answer your question at the very end: yes, I believe it is a balancing act. But I believe that, were we working together, the problem you describe is a problem that we'd easily resolve. A bit like riding a bicycle: when you know what you're doing, you don't need to cycle bolt-upright and forever perpendicular to the saddle in order to keep going. You can be all over the place and yet pull yourself back. So, too, I speculate, with paint: it's not like the ratio must be exactly such-and-such to flood / undercoat / trace etc. with it. I'm confident there's a range. A broad range, even.
But the lump itself must be similar to ours to start with.
Of course, there's a whole lot else going on, other than just the quantity of water: the quantity of paint, the mixing process, the area which the "reservoir" covers, the temperature in your workshop or of your palette - and, as I said, the gum.
Since the paint is basic, that's where I'd like to start: if your standard lump is significantly different from ours, everything from there on in is going to be different. As I say, we'll return to softened highlights shortly. This will be a way to sort out the similarities and differences between our respective lumps of paint.
Yes, McGilchrist is provocative. So happy to learn you followed up with him. I am working through his book, The Master and his Emissary. Much to ponder.
Hugo - It's to do with the left-brain / right-brain distinction, as traditionally conceived (especially by non-scientists, many of whom take it as a badge of honour that they are no good at maths or science, concluding therefore and outrageously that they must therefore have a special gift for art, whereas their most significant gift is likely for self-deception): another reader made time to bring some recent and pertinent research to our attention (and I am reading the book right now).
2 questions: 1) after straightening, you clean your lines, don’t you? If so then you scratch the undercoat...letting light pass, no? 2) you straighten more than once sometimes with the same actual lump? Meaning , same ratio gum arabic etc? No dissolving of the first lines? As you know, I work only with vinegar and if needed glycol . All of that probably because of my lack of skills (speed...) with water , that I « learned » to despise.
1: after strengthening, we rarely clean our lines (if I understand you). That is, we rarely re-shape them.
2: yes, we might strengthen more than once - although, as a rule, we'd aim to strengthen in one go, if this is possible. It's just that sometimes, later, when all the pieces are assembled side-by-side, for instance, it might only then become apparent that more strengthening is needed. How we'd do that further strengthening depends on several variables. And sometimes we might fire first. However, if we didn't fire first, we might use glycol to thicken the lines. Or, if we were confident the strengthening would not damage the paint which was already there, then, yes, we'd use the same paint as before.
I am confused : »Instead, lines—all lines: thin lines, thick lines, light lines, dark lines, regular lines and shaped lines—went down one after the other and in one go till every last one of them was in its place, the design still underneath the glass. «. And earlier you say that you removed the drawing...?
How I was taught at the adult education college: with the design beneath the glass, paint all lines (thin lines, thick lines, light lines, dark lines etc.). That is, painting the lines (whether thick or thin, light or dark) is a one-stage (and very literal, slavish) process.
How I later learned to paint: with the design beneath the glass, (lightly) trace many / all lines (some lines it's better to paint free-hand, later: but this is also a question of experience and confidence). Then put the design to one side, and, with suitable paint, darken / thicken the lines (and maybe leave some of them as they were before - light and thin). That is, at least a two-stage process.
As usual your Letter is pertinent and eye opening. I will probably write more than one comment since my poor attention span (only very focused when my hands are working or holding a glass of gin, rum, whiskey) do not allow me to synthesize all at the same time. I must say that I struggle with the undercoat & darkening (tracing is easy). Because if I make a mistake , i loose the undercoat.
I understand. Please don't judge yourself in terms of how we paint. For instance, the work we do for our clients is mostly for big, high-up windows. It's not often we do close-up work. If you or anyone else paints a lot of close-up work, different standards might apply. That said, once someone becomes confident with the traditional mixture of paint, water and gum Arabic, their painted lines inherit a lovely flow. This flow will often NOT be identical with the design, but this often doesn't matter, because the lines themselves are lovely in their own right. Some lines must be the same or else the design is pointless: the expression in an eye, or in the lips, for instance. Other lines - the curls in someone's hair, for instance - simply need to be convincing and full of life: if they have that, then, even if they're not the same as the curls in the design, correction isn't called for, and the undercoat remains intact until you highlight it.
Thank you for this most detailed and instructive letter, along with a bit of autobiography.
BTW: One of your countrymen - Iain McGilchrist - has written a seminal work on brain physiology and how we attend to our world. (The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, 2009). He answers many questions concerning left brain/right brain interest.
I have to ask, maybe I'm missing something, but my own admittedly limited experience leaves me unable to understand things like this: "...when your strengthening paint is really dark and really flowing" and "strengthening paint is as unlike tracing paint or undercoating paint as it is possible to be" and "flooding paint must be runny." If I start with what I'll call a "standard lump" consisting of pigment and gum arabic and water or glycol or some liquid or other, then the only way I know of to change how it goes on the glass (light, dark, runny, whatever) is to vary the amount of liquid I add to it. When I make it "really flowing" for example, it's automatically not "really dark." If I make it runny enough to stay wet while flooding a large empty area, then (again in my limited experience) it's too thin, i.e. doesn't have enough pigment, to be opaque in one coat, at least not consistently across the whole flooded area. Do I just need to practice more, or is there actually some difference in the lump itself, or have I just not found the sweet spot where every physical property of the paint comes together in a fine balancing act?
It's so helpful to hear about your experience, because it did not occur to us that we had failed to explains matters properly here. This is such a jolt in a way, that I can't put things right in this reply.
First of all, and to be clear, unless we say otherwise, all the demonstrations are performed with a "standard" lump of glass paint, composed of pigment, gum Arabic and water.
Second, when we undercoat, trace, strengthen, and flood: this is all done with the same "standard" lump of paint.
I know you know this already, but, for the benefit of other readers I'll stress there must be sufficient gum Arabic in the paint. I'm not saying it's not possible to otherwise make all the consistencies (undercoat, trace, flood etc.). Just that, when you or anyone practising starts with the same "standard" paint as we do, then it's easier to solve problems.
We'll soon be having a longer look at how to soften highlights: this will be important because this is a wonderful technique for discovering how much gum Arabic your standard lump contains, whether it likely contains a similar quantity to ours.
Gum is important because it helps bind water and pigment together. As we've commented in other places, it functions like a coagulant. And I do wonder if some difficulties with flooding might be solved by adding more gum. That is, my immediate thought is that there is some significant difference between our lumps of paint.
To answer your question at the very end: yes, I believe it is a balancing act. But I believe that, were we working together, the problem you describe is a problem that we'd easily resolve. A bit like riding a bicycle: when you know what you're doing, you don't need to cycle bolt-upright and forever perpendicular to the saddle in order to keep going. You can be all over the place and yet pull yourself back. So, too, I speculate, with paint: it's not like the ratio must be exactly such-and-such to flood / undercoat / trace etc. with it. I'm confident there's a range. A broad range, even.
But the lump itself must be similar to ours to start with.
Of course, there's a whole lot else going on, other than just the quantity of water: the quantity of paint, the mixing process, the area which the "reservoir" covers, the temperature in your workshop or of your palette - and, as I said, the gum.
Since the paint is basic, that's where I'd like to start: if your standard lump is significantly different from ours, everything from there on in is going to be different. As I say, we'll return to softened highlights shortly. This will be a way to sort out the similarities and differences between our respective lumps of paint.
Thank you for raising this point.
Yes, McGilchrist is provocative. So happy to learn you followed up with him. I am working through his book, The Master and his Emissary. Much to ponder.
I missed that part ... can you elaborate please ?
Hugo - It's to do with the left-brain / right-brain distinction, as traditionally conceived (especially by non-scientists, many of whom take it as a badge of honour that they are no good at maths or science, concluding therefore and outrageously that they must therefore have a special gift for art, whereas their most significant gift is likely for self-deception): another reader made time to bring some recent and pertinent research to our attention (and I am reading the book right now).
So true. Science is Art.
2 questions: 1) after straightening, you clean your lines, don’t you? If so then you scratch the undercoat...letting light pass, no? 2) you straighten more than once sometimes with the same actual lump? Meaning , same ratio gum arabic etc? No dissolving of the first lines? As you know, I work only with vinegar and if needed glycol . All of that probably because of my lack of skills (speed...) with water , that I « learned » to despise.
1: after strengthening, we rarely clean our lines (if I understand you). That is, we rarely re-shape them.
2: yes, we might strengthen more than once - although, as a rule, we'd aim to strengthen in one go, if this is possible. It's just that sometimes, later, when all the pieces are assembled side-by-side, for instance, it might only then become apparent that more strengthening is needed. How we'd do that further strengthening depends on several variables. And sometimes we might fire first. However, if we didn't fire first, we might use glycol to thicken the lines. Or, if we were confident the strengthening would not damage the paint which was already there, then, yes, we'd use the same paint as before.
Yeah that’s what I meant . In order to not cleaning one has to be skilled and confident enough. Neither am I yet .
I am confused : »Instead, lines—all lines: thin lines, thick lines, light lines, dark lines, regular lines and shaped lines—went down one after the other and in one go till every last one of them was in its place, the design still underneath the glass. «. And earlier you say that you removed the drawing...?
Hi, Hugo -
Here's what I mean:
How I was taught at the adult education college: with the design beneath the glass, paint all lines (thin lines, thick lines, light lines, dark lines etc.). That is, painting the lines (whether thick or thin, light or dark) is a one-stage (and very literal, slavish) process.
How I later learned to paint: with the design beneath the glass, (lightly) trace many / all lines (some lines it's better to paint free-hand, later: but this is also a question of experience and confidence). Then put the design to one side, and, with suitable paint, darken / thicken the lines (and maybe leave some of them as they were before - light and thin). That is, at least a two-stage process.
Does that make better sense now?
Yup. All good.
As usual your Letter is pertinent and eye opening. I will probably write more than one comment since my poor attention span (only very focused when my hands are working or holding a glass of gin, rum, whiskey) do not allow me to synthesize all at the same time. I must say that I struggle with the undercoat & darkening (tracing is easy). Because if I make a mistake , i loose the undercoat.
I understand. Please don't judge yourself in terms of how we paint. For instance, the work we do for our clients is mostly for big, high-up windows. It's not often we do close-up work. If you or anyone else paints a lot of close-up work, different standards might apply. That said, once someone becomes confident with the traditional mixture of paint, water and gum Arabic, their painted lines inherit a lovely flow. This flow will often NOT be identical with the design, but this often doesn't matter, because the lines themselves are lovely in their own right. Some lines must be the same or else the design is pointless: the expression in an eye, or in the lips, for instance. Other lines - the curls in someone's hair, for instance - simply need to be convincing and full of life: if they have that, then, even if they're not the same as the curls in the design, correction isn't called for, and the undercoat remains intact until you highlight it.
I see that I am still far technically.:)
Thank you for this most detailed and instructive letter, along with a bit of autobiography.
BTW: One of your countrymen - Iain McGilchrist - has written a seminal work on brain physiology and how we attend to our world. (The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, 2009). He answers many questions concerning left brain/right brain interest.
And I now found some interviews with McGilchrist: he's very lucid and wide-ranging and stimulating.
Thank you for the reference: that's most helpful of you.