"Artefact" - original painting in acrylics and oils
Artefact, 1995
Acrylic/oil on fiberboard
40 x 50 cm / 15.75 x 19.69 in
The figure in this painting was inspired by Jan Saudek's photograph "Walkman".
Details
Artefact, 1995
Acrylic/oil on fiberboard
40 x 50 cm / 15.75 x 19.69 in
The figure in this painting was inspired by Jan Saudek's photograph "Walkman".
Details
I very much prefer oils, even for my own inept hand. I saw an acrylic you posted recently but kept my mouth shut. I feel comfy saying it now: Oils are generally superior. Luminosity, range of color, hue, and durability as a medium (not physical durability but the oils have been preferred since eggs went out of style)
That's a pretty bold statement, and although I work a lot with egg tempera and oil, I might not necessarily agree with you. Oil is just like acrylic, basically the "glue" that sticks your pigment to the surface. So Luminosity, range of color, hue, are determined by your pigment used, how you layer it and how you varnish your artwork. OK... durability remains to be seen... although a lot of 19th century art in oil is in really poor shape!
The medium was lost, so the works of Peale and Waterhouse are not holding up, but older oils are in better shape and the Maroger medium is now well-established. Look at a puddle of oil and look at a puddle of water.....Which has more luinosity? Which reflects an array of light? The water reflects an image better, but oil is alive! Standing by my bold statement, until the end. I underpaint and draw with acrylic but oil is oil....That only made sense to me diddnit?
Quite alright to have a different opinion, although I don't understand your example with the puddle... wouldn't the liquids have to be dry in a finished painting? Plus, I'm certainly not arguing against oil, as I use it in most of my work. Its just when you write: Oils are generally superior I question, if that is true.
The main reason I use oil is the (long) drying time and having a certain control over that by the way I mix my medium. That makes it easier to use for glazing and smooth transitions like Peter says.
I would suggest, that each medium has its distinct advantages and its up to the artist to make the best of it.
I just find oils are usually way more attractive. I have tried several mediums but I probably have a huge emotional attachment to oils and graphite as pure medium. I have personal preferences for musical instruments, dance, and ritual forms too. The comparison roots back to my mother moving me from acrylics to oils when I was about 17 years old. She spilled some plain oil into water to demonstrate that they do not mix without an emulsifier of some kind. She also pointed out that although the water has a placid reflection the oil makes a rainbow. I still find the oils harder to use but the effects are always better.....unless I really want an acrylic effect. I sort of "draw" with the acrylics so they are great for sketching but oils are truly imagination made manifest for me. Each ,medium does have it's distinctive advantages but the smell, feel, and pliability of oil are just in a thing their own. I find it is really relaxing to just paint with oil, almost meditative.
Now that is something I can definitely relate to, an attachment to something, a personal preference. I for instance love the smell of turpentine, lavender oil, dammar varnish and all that... although I know not all of it is good for your health.
I own one of Peter's paintings and at least for the sky, to me there is no way of telling if it was done in oil or acrylics. A real masterpiece and one of my biggest treasures.
American painter Kris Kuksi showed me how to do a glaze with acrylics. He did a portrait of me in acrylics in way most people wouldn't be able to do in oil.
Just two reasons, why I would be reluctant to say one is superior to the other. Stating "I like one more than the other" however is a whole different story 😀
There is definitely a difference in luminosity and range of color. To me the greatest advantage of oils, however, is its depth of dark intense glazings like with Ultramarine or Alizarin crimson. No way to get such a dark deep blue with acrylics! But since I rarely need this saturation I don't use it. Another advantage is the way how you can carefully add and remove glazings. With acrylics you have to be very careful with this because once it dries it can't be removed.
Thank you @pastbastard!
I'm not sure about the durability - oils usually do crack after a few decades. I prefer acrylics because they dry instantly. When I need smooth transitions or glazings I spray the acrylics with the airbrush.
Also, I would totally make on offer but your artwork is worth more than my cars and possibly my house....combined. Really rare to see a style so modern, yet fully developed as its own style. I would be uber jealous if you haven't done 30 years of "just art."
Thank you! But unfortunately my paintings are not that expensive! :-)
You have a link to your store/seller?
Yes: http://www.gric.at/preisliste/
I buy a car every year or two for 2 or 3 grand....... I am always awed that someone has "made it" as an artist. My grandmother was almost 70 when she found her exact niche. She sculpted and painted replicas of people's pets.
wow very nice art and keep it up my friend 💕
Thanks!
hi @gric, thank you for share, I like your post, hope you are also willing to see my blog, I really appreciate it🤗, @myaceh