Some day my paper prince will come...

Last post I touched on the role of sizing in watercolor paper and it's effect on the paper's behavior when wet. I've puzzled it some more and come up with this. I'm Using Arches and Bockingford as comparisons - there are too many papers to comment on all of them and these are popular examples of two basic types. There are no really awful papers in my opinion (though Strathmore Aquarius comes close). Just papers that wouldn't match your profile on ePaperHarmony.com.  The purpose of this post is to shed a bit of light on why each might perform as it does, in the hopes you can experiment and find a suitable match...

First, there are a lot of variables and I'm basing these comments on the use of UNSOAKED, UNSTRETCHED PAPER. The comment in points 4-7 will be even more important if you soak and stretch.
1. Is the size IN the paper, ON the paper or BOTH?
 That corresponds to, respectively, internal sizing, surface sizing or the two together. Bockingford is an internally sized paper, and this is typical of "student" papers, though for reasons below I find it outperforms them all and most "artist grade" papers too. Arches is both internally and surface sized which is typical of artist grade papers.
2. How much size is used on the paper? Here I have to guess and go by feel. I'm going to say Bockingford feels pretty heavily sized and Arches uses less internal sizing because it gets the additional surface sizing (possibly there's a limit to how much sizing is desirable?..I don't know and the manufacturers are understandably mute on their process). Bottom line, one has more size close to the surface and the other has it all packed into the paper. The behavior is noticeable as it should be.
3. What is the sizing made of? Arches uses an animal gelatin (in either or both sizings...I'd say both) and Bockingford uses something else. Possibly the synthetic gelatin called Aquapel? Bottom line, they paint differently.
4. How easily does it soften when wetted? The Arches size seems to loosen up faster than the Bockingford. Perhaps because your initial paint application is hitting size alone?
5. How long does it stay wet before it hardens again? Arches, once loosened, seems to stay moist longer. Possibly that's because Bockingford is a wood fiber paper and Arches is cotton which should be naturally more absorbent. This and the point above are probably why Arches was the paper of choice for the American School of watercolorists from 1930-1970. Their working method was rather specific.
6. Does surface sizing sink in? Seems so, especially if your brushwork is vigorous.
7. Is some of it removed by the brush during the painting process? Seems like it does. On both papers colors look "furrier" in heavily worked areas. Either that or water and brushwork push it into adjacent areas. This brings up another issue: does your painting style redistribute sizing unequally?

Final observations: The whole trick to watercolor is knowing what the condition of your paper is, so that when you bring a particular consistency of paint to it, you can make an educated guess as to the result. All the above factors affect the condition of the surface and need to be noticed from one brand to the next so you know WHEN to go into the paper with the desired paint consistency. Your frog may be a prince...but they all need to be kissed differently.

Paper chase

The subject of paper came up in class the other day - questions about sizing and such - so I did a bit of research to try and supplement my experience. I learned a couple things and got some surprises too. Had I gone by manufacturer info and Internet reviews I may have rejected my favorites without trying them!
 First, my favorite papers: 
1. Bockingford 140lb. Cold Press (white and occasionally the tinted)
2. Saunders Waterford 140lb. Cold Press and Rough
(Both are manufactured by the same mill)

 Next, papers which work ok once I get the hang of them:
1. Kilimanjaro
2. Arches
3. Fabriano
4. Lana
5. Bee (?) a paper I was given to try.
   Last, papers I don't like:
1. Any 300lb. paper (WAY too thirsty for me)
2. Most hot press surfaces (except in sketchbooks)
3. Papers with an obviously mechanical texture (most "student" papers)

Sizing
Watercolor papers are sized to reduce absorbency (think painting on toilet paper) . All are internally sized; sizing mixed into the pulp before forming the sheet. Some are externally sized as well; an additional coat applied after the sheet is formed. This extra step accounts for the higher price of artist grade papers. Student grade papers don't get the extra application.
Pulp
Watercolor paper can be made from wood pulp or cotton. Cotton is naturally acid free. Wood contains acidic lignin but high alpha cellulose pulp can be buffered to a neutral ph. Cotton's longer fibers supposedly make it less buckle-prone than wood fiber papers.
Texture
Watery pulp is spread onto felts to form a sheet. As the water drains and evaporates the sheet takes on the texture of the felt (sheet by sheet with handmade papers or in a machine which duplicates the process in volume). Cheaper papers are produced on a machine which doesn't mimic the felting process as well. This results in the pulp fibers assuming a more uniform grain direction. These papers buckle more than felted papers, whose fibers are more randomly distributed, equalizing their expansion and contraction a bit when wet.

So, logic would dictate the best paper is 100% cotton, externally sized and favorably reviewed by a diverse, international cross section of experienced painters on Internet sites such as WetCanvas...so much for logic...
Ironically, my first choice, Bockingford, meets NONE of those criteria! My second choice, Waterford, meets 2 out of 3.
Arches, which doesn't really thrill me, enjoys a mojo-like reputation. Brits speak highly of English made Saunders but is that national pride? Painters outside the UK seem to be Arches fans overall.
Conclusion 
If you learn to be aware of a paper's condition (dry, wet, damp) you will have a fair idea what happens when a given consistency of paint hits it. Experienced painters get what they want on just about any paper because they can gauge its condition.
 How paper reacts to water will differ between wood and cotton, the weight of the paper and the type and amount of size. All added variables - some of which are patented and proprietary.
Your style will dictate a favorite. If you rework your surface a lot or use masking fluid liberally a heavily sized, long fiber paper is indicated. Some artists don't like how Arches behaves until they've brushed water on it or soaked and stretched it. I suspect that softens or removes some of the size and gets it to a state similar to Bockingford, which is only internally sized. If you gave Bockingford the same treatment, it would probably be unsatisfactory.
 Alvaro Castagnet and Joseph Zbukvic have Arches endorsements (interestingly they both used Saunders when they had to buy their own) but they can paint well on anything because they're hyper aware of the paper's condition. Both paint in ordinary sketchbooks made primarily for graphite. I've seen Zbukvic remark on video how Arches doesn't react quite how he likes but he adapts in realtime and the painting comes out.

Getting lost in the woods

Last Saturday I went painting with friends on the Van Buren county Riviera, near Pittsburgh (Iowa, that is). Carroll Michalek turned us on to some exposed limestone banks on Chequest creek. Jessica snapped a photo of us, budding fashionistas all. Amazingly, the coordination of our painting ensembles was totally spontaneous: This season the Art Smart Set is wearing shades of gunmetal with accents in ultramarine and claret.

 At the easel, however, I got lost in all the neutral color and woodsy texture. I was kind of happy color wise with what I did but think it could have been simpler: Suggest more texture (not render it) and paint more pattern. Here's the picture on location.

 Here is a studio version next to it  - with what I hope are simplifications and improvements.

I don't paint woodsy subjects enough.  I've learned to simplify a field of soybeans but I got seduced with all the rocks, leaves and branches here. I heard similar complaints from those assembled.
One of the things to be said for painting with friends is that you instantly see major variations on a subject, especially when others are working in different media. Jessica and Carlene painted in oils this outing, Carroll drew and I reveled in the novelty of using watercolors in January without vodka in the water pot. Had I been painting solo I may not have tried to puzzle through these issues and just moved on to other subjects.  I think it's worth going back to and doing some more.

Studio makeover progress

Well, thing are getting close to done. My stacked storage unit is built. Dismantling the two old ones shocked me when I saw how dirty everything was.

 It's made of 28" hollow core doors with 1x6 legs screwed on to the sides. I removed the old 32" legs and put on 72" legs instead. The drawers are 1x4 with a 1/4" Masonite bottom and attached to slides. The bottom section houses my large Schminke pastel boxes with a tool drawer over one. Small items like watercolor tubes and drawing supplies go in an old card file I got at a library auction. Portable easels go on top. Mat board, fomecor and assorted papers next. Below that are frames and larger pieces of glass (smaller pieces go in the leftover space at bottom right) and canvases and stuff stored in tubes.

A 36" door slides out from between two shelves as a work table for priming panels, cutting mats or stretching canvas. With one room it's necessary to have convertible work stations.

 The laundry wall cabinet that used to be above the old table got casters and is now a taboret thingie for gesso, solvents, paint and related items.

That freed up my drawing table to be used as...wait for it...a drawing table! I actually got that on the curb during spring pickup in Fairfield years ago. I check that house every year now!

 The big easel is in its corner. The ceiling lights will have to be rearranged to fit but as is, it's fine during daylight hours.

 There's lots more room now but the issue has become parting with bits of this and that that clutter up the room. Junk I thought could be used for some project...and has been waiting years for said project to materialize. It's all going to go. Next will be some painting racks on the wall for plein air studies.      Meanwhile, I'm getting ideas from what my painting friends are posting in their blogs so I'll probably work in it for a while before making any other changes.

Rezzo loo shunz...bye 2015

Resolution...What does that mean anyway? You already had a solution but didn't use it and now you're reapplying it? That's why I don't understand making them. Setting yourself up to not do something you're already not doing seems vaguely metaphysical.
 However I AM going to attempt that other new year tradition of "getting organized". My studio is what my Dad used to call a "s**t house mess". Now that the really cold weather is coming I'll be spending more time working in it...or trying to. I can't just use it as a place to dump painting gear and store frames before heading to the spacious outdoors. This 13x13 ex-bedroom needs a makeover (which is another big tradition, I think...but this project will need more than press-on nails and a pair of spanks).
 Here are some before photos. As 13x13 is a small footprint, my only option is the urban architecture approach of going vertical - these shelf/table combos are going to get stacked and a 36"x80" work table will slide out from between the two.

 The big easel is going to go to a corner where the windows always light it indirectly. Right now it starts the day with bright, direct light and gets darker and indirect as time passes.

The portable easels will go on the top shelf of the new stacked version (would that lifting constitute a workout program?).
 Still, there are a few things I don't know how to rearrange just yet. If you have any great ideas, please pass them on and I will share pictures as things develop.
Happy 2016!

Drag it - don't nag it

 Oh, phooey...I wanted to imbed video in this post but time and incompetence have gotten the best of me...so here's the info in verbal form and perhaps someday I'll manage a video redux.
 Previously, I've written how paint looks and behaves on the palette and what value to expect once it's put to paper. To recap: Runny paint (paint that moves freely on a tipped palette) makes light to medium value marks. Paint that moves slowly on a tipped palette makes medium to dark value marks. Paint that stays put makes the darkest mark available from that pigment.
 So, with the right color in brush, the next challenge is to get it on paper with the desired appearance.
Watercolor doesn't like to be dabbed, stroked or brushed...it's mostly water and water likes to flow.
Think like so: The water carries the color and you move the water.  You lead it where you want and after it evaporates, beautiful color remains....or not.
If you dab, stroke or otherwise nag it, watercolor leaves a mess. Lead it about nicely and it will gift you with colorful presents.
 Runny paint and slow moving paint require different application procedures - but neither involves rubbing, scrubbing or dabbing.

 Runny paint flows across the paper easily. If  your paper is at a 45-60 degree angle it forms a juicy bead at the brushstroke's lower edge (the flatter you work, the faster the water soaks into the paper - it has to be on the surface to lead about). If you touch a loaded brush to the bottom edge of your bead you can continue to lay a smooth wash wherever you lead that bead. When you OVERLAP the bead with your brush, you risk streaks. Bringing your brush into an area you've just painted does a couple things: it can "wipe" a bit of the previous stroke away, leaving a lighter patch. Or, the additional liquid may wash the area lighter. I like to say "bring the brush TO IT but not THROUGH IT". The bead waits for you while you apply color to other areas, so don't run your brush out and leave a dry edge. Leave a bead so you can pick up where you left off. Just reload your brush, pick up the bead from underneath and lead on. When you get where you're going, "drink up" any remaining bead by touching a squeezed out brush tip to it.
WASH TIP: Keeping the brush handle pointing up lets gravity aid the release of paint. Pointing the handle down slows that release as gravity pulls it back into the tuft. If your bead starts to starve out, go "handle up" to keep it juicy. If you're coming up to a complex shape and need to paint around it with care, go "handle down" to slow the flow.
Slow moving paint is trickier to lead about because it's thicker. It won't form a bead you can coax along. So how do you get a relatively smooth application over large areas? Again, "bring the brush TO IT but not THROUGH IT".
Put some slow moving color on the paper - as far as it will go and still look wet. It should glisten. Then, reload your brush and bring the brush to the WET EDGE of the previous mark and let hydraulics do the joining. DON'T STIR BACK INTO PREVIOUSLY PAINTED AREAS to blend the new paint unless you want streaks, texture or blossoms.

Common mistakes
1. HARD PAINT: Make sure the paint in the palette is fresh or re-moistened enough to get the desired consistency.
2. MIX PLENTY: Have color ready so the bead or wet edge isn't drying up while you mix more. Often painters try to cover too big an area and then starve their bead, or let their wet edge get too dry. While they're  mixing more color - which is difficult when there's little of the original to go by - a hard edge forms where they left off. Then, they torture and scrub that distinct line trying to get the new paint look like a seamless extension of the old. The result is usually blotches and bands.
3. DON'T DILUTE: Another no-no is trying to extend the paint by bringing more water to it. That only lightens the mix you worked so hard to get right.
Remember: The trick to getting a smooth transition is to keep the bead - or the edge - wet!

Who's your favorite Impressionist?

I was going to call this post "Great shapes" and realized it had all pictures of women...didn't want to attract the wrong kind of cyber traffic, so I'm making it a kind of survey: Which Impressionist sends YOU...and WHY?
Lots of good choices (remember, there were Impressionist painters in nearly every developed country at that time - even Japan!) For variety's sake, include the Post Impressionists because frankly they were all contemporaries.
 Over time, I've settled on Toulouse-Lautrec. I may have finally become my father...he hung Lautrec reproductions in his bedroom. Perhaps seeing them so often was subliminal? In any case, Lautrec had an eye for great shapes...and always divided up his picture plane interestingly. Even better than Degas and Manet, though doubtless there was mutual influence. His color is pretty amazing too, whether his palette was low chroma, high chroma or flat out garish. And he may have been the best draftsman in the bunch. But of course we're all going to say that about "our guy" (or girl...don't forget Celia Beaux, Mary Cassat or Berthe Morisot).
 I don't know who this girl is but when you find one like her you don't paint just one picture!

The shapes of her nose, jaw line, hair, blouse are just simple geometrics but with a bit of unusual contour somewhere. It pays to find that odd bit and get it just so. The background is simplified to feature her features. The limited palette (black, white, yellow ochre and some red? The Zorn palette!) doesn't compete with the shape-fest.
 Look how he's "joined" the blouse to a window to create an interesting COMPOSITE shape. And that wisp of hair!! Klimt HAD to have seen this.

In both pictures he avoided splattering his lights around willy-nilly - the big light shape is the draw and other light shapes are either smaller and/or different in character (geometric versus organic for example - a hat tip to the Japanese).
 This woman, her hair, and her blouse unite as almost one engaging shape.

Lautrec has avoided the temptation to paint each separately and has instead seen them in the light that falls on all three - probably because of its unusual color. We also see his gift for making both the positive and negative shapes interesting.
Check out this amazing bedsheet shape with two disembodied heads floating in it like eggs in a bird nest. Yet you feel the bodies under the covers - barely. 

Take out the heads and the color nuance in the sheet shape reminds me of Cezanne's watercolor's of Mont St. Victoire in Provence. Again, minimizing the details of the headboard and wall confirms what he saw and he wants us to look at. We've all seen furniture but perhaps missed the fracture of a particular light on a particular surface.
 I think this is Lautrec's mother (quite attractive...whoever she is).

Anyway the color in this rivals anything Monet or Pissarro did outdoors. Lautrec handled indoor light whether dim, bright or sickly artificial. There's a rainbow in his whites. Edges lost in strong light tie expected shapes to other surfaces and draw the eye all over. This is a masterpiece of drawing in paint with a brush too.
Last is this remarkable puzzle piece collection of weird yet recognizable shapes. It would take C4 to separate them - they interlock so beautifully.

 This picture straddles Lautrec's painting and poster work. The drawing on the face of the girl at right wavers between realism and cartoon. Turn of the century European Anime, almost. The central figure has such an odd expression...either she's drunk or a bit confused because someone appears to have inserted a carrot with its green top intact into her décolletage...or both. I'm told that sort of thing can happen on girl's night out. Anyway, great pictures...share about your favorite painter?