Talk:Oil paint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Oil paint: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Locate appropiate image. Current is "artisitic".

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Painting oil → Oil paint – more common name. -- Kjkolb 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support better known name --Arnoutf 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Gene Nygaard 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Lox (t,c) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as common sense. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as common sense. Thumbelina 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I've made some changes, but there are still sections that read as a polemic against the use of oil paint. The vague suggestions that water-miscible oils and acrylic paints are less toxic than regular oils is wrong. Perhaps the author thinks one has to use volatile spirits with true oil paints. That's not the case. Anyway, someone who understands this stuff should re-write it. 67.126.57.193 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC) -- Oops sorry. I was not logged in. Jive Dadson 04:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be wikified, copy edited & merged into oil painting, with a redirect. -- Jmabel 03:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think this should be moved to Oil Paint and this page should redirect there. The Oil Painting page should be kept for the actual art of painting. I will do this sometime if no one objects or does somthing else before. sunja 10:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the links are redirects from "oil paint" and some of these which are not are piped as "painting oil|oil paint" so that "oil paint" is what is displayed in the article. Gene Nygaard 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I've moved the contents around a little bit, but I've also taken a few things right out. Does anyone mind? - brenneman(t)(c)

Mind?! Of course not! Great rewrite, very impressed - the article looks very nice now! --Lox (t,c) 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lead cancer to toxic

Lead is as far as I know and the wikipedia section on Lead states toxic, but not carcinogenous. Still a definite health issue; changed the sentence Arnoutf 00:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn't mention any carcinogenic effect of lead[1], though it does outline other health issues! --Lox (t,c) 11:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
My fault for just re-formatting what was there without checking the facts. Sorry. No reason that link shouldn't go on the page as a footnote, now. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure

With an eye towards this being a FAC, I propose the following structure to the article. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Intro
2. History
   2.1 First recorded use
   2.2 Decorative/practical uses
   2.3 Artistic use
3. Carrier
   3.1 Characteristics
   3.2 Sources
   3.4 Extraction methods
   3.5 Additives
4. Pigment
   4.1 Characteristics
   4.2 Historic
   4.3 Modern
5. Modern usage
   5.1 Artistic
   5.2 Industrial
   5.3 Domestic

The main structure sounds good. Perhaps we need to add a single section on additivies: solvents (e.g. turpentine); fillers (e.g. some modern painters have been stuff into their paints to achieve more powerful impasto effect e.g. sand); and varnish. We might also consider some about technique of using the paint (brushes, linen etc) but that may be over the top

If you get into the subject of supports (canvas or panels, for example), brushes, technique, and so forth, there will be a lot of misinformation and arguing, and it will never be anywhere close to complete. Jive Dadson 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the second level I have some issues that may confuse the issue. For example soot, is about the oldest pigment ever used (prehistoric caves), but is also a cheap and powerful modern pigment for lampblack oil paint; so the division historic modern seems a bit strange. Although I guess you consider obsolete pigments as historic and new (synthetic) ones as modern. Furhter I wonder about Domestic and Industrial use of Oil paint nowadays. Most modern industrial/domestic paints are alkyd or acrylic paint based to my knowledgde So then the strucutre would be more like this (it's only a suggestion) (c) Arnoutf 10:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Intro
2. History
   2.1 First recorded use
   2.2 Decorative/practical uses
   2.3 Artistic use
3. Carrier
   3.1 Characteristics
   3.2 Sources
   3.3 Extraction methods
4. Pigment
   4.1 Characteristics
   4.2 Historic
   4.3 Modern
5. Additives
   5.1 Solvents
   5.2 Special effect additives
   5.3 Varnish
6. Usage
   6.1 Health issues
   6.2 Artistic technigues
   6.2 Modern use


Perhaps we should also consider mergin the article on Water miscible oil paint into the oil paint article as this is (in my opinion) a sub article to it Arnoutf 10:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I do like having additives farmed out on it's own, and agree to the merge suggested above. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do

I've added one per Wikipedia:To-do list but am not to sure about how it works... - brenneman(t)(c) 05:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad-like

The copy in 20th and 21st century carriers strikes me as a bit ad-like. Reads almost like an ad for Winsor & Newton, except insofar as it mentions one other brand. What do others think? - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Also this section is very negative on the traditional oil paint. Is the consensus really that the stuff should better be replaced (or is this more the opinion of the brands sporting the alternatives). There are probably also negative aspects of the new carriers (I could e.g. imagine that drying time is changed because of the water, or that the final layer of paint has different qualities). I think if any negative sides exist they should be discussed. Arnoutf 14:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome someone else taking this on, because it is an area where I am not expert. If I take it on, it may be just to remove the section. - Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I split up the section, retaining the valuable information (under toxidity and carrier and the new heading advantages disadvantages). I removed reference to the mentioned brands. I hope everyone agrees Arnoutf 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is still a hint that using traditional oil paint requires the use of volatile thinners and cleaners. That is not the case. One can use oil to thin the paint if necessary (perhaps a thin drying oil like walnut). One can clean the brushes with plain soap and water. That is exactly what I do, in fact. One of the big disadvantages of the water miscible stuff is how sticky it gets. Some brands are like glue. There's one brand that's recognized by a lot of people as clearly the best in that repect, but I do not think it is the one that was "advertized." Jive Dadson 09:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think volatile thinners (turpentine) and cleaners (white spirit or similar) are still in wide use. So they warrant discussion Arnoutf 09:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I only take exception to the assertion or implication that one must use them to paint with and clean up traditional oil paint. I have painted many a picture without using any spirits. I always clean my brushes with soap and water.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs)
Ok, I gather it is more about toning down then actual removal of claims, I can agree with that (I usually just rinse my brushes in (re-sued) white spirit to get rid of most oil and pigments after that I do the thorough cleaning with soap&water). I wonder about the relevance of talking about California health labelling for an international encyclopedia though. Arnoutf 10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animation with oil paints

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow incorporate info on paint-on-glass animation into this article. It's certainly an interesting use of the properties of oil paints, but I'm not sure how best to add it in. Esn 09:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at it and realized that the opening paragraph was probably the best place. Sorry about this post. Esn 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from History of Oil paint

The article history of oil paint is essentially a duplicate of this. I propose the content should be merged here and the page turned into a redirect to this one. I do not know anything about paint so it would be better if someone else did the merge but I'll have a go if no-one else does.--NHSavage 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Support merge. Arnoutf 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Definitely needs doing. CarrotMan 07:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I went ahead and merged it. The former "History of oil paint" article had a ton of information about carriers and drying that was already in this article word-for-word, so I researched it and rewrote it. I'm not exactly an art expert, so I hope it's okay. IrisWings 07:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical formulas

Have those historical formulas been checked out? Through the years, many people have proclaimed to know what substances the old masters used, only to be proven wrong by science. Has science confirmed that Rubens used megilp made from walnut oil, or is there only that one ancient paper that says so? I seem to remember reading that a restorer at the Met Museum of Art said that Rubens used plain linseed oil with perhaps some turps. Jive Dadson 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this section severely lack inline citations. Arnoutf 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New carriers

I have altered the petty comment questioning the expressive qualities of new carriers of pigment (acrylic, polyester, etc.) Different paint binders should be thought of as different mediums. - Greengoat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.236.168.125 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2007.