Talk:Oil paint

Requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not an artist, but how should Alkyd fit into this article? --Amillar (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

The main cancer causer in oil paint is cadmium from what I've read. Artblogs (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree about cadmium, but the article read (long time ago) that lead (which was the main white pigment) was replaced because it was carcinogenic. Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

10 July 2011, References moved from main page

I moved the following from the main page while working on the overall structure, including the reference. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Many modern paint manufacturers test for lightfastness, how well a pigment retains its color when exposed to light. The results of these tests are printed on the paint tube's label, often on the back with the pigment list.

Artists can also buy empty tubes and fill them with paint. The filling is done through the bottom. Then the bottom is folded and crimped. Paint for later use is accessed through the screw cap at the other end — as usual. This can be useful for having on hand a mixed color that is found to be a good starting point for mixing a color within a commonly used range, as concerns an artist's personal preferences.

Also took out these, moving here as possible references. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• "History of Oil Paint." Cyberlipid Center.
• "History of Painting Mediums." Real Color Wheel.
• "A Brief History." Sanders-Studios.com.
• "The Evolution of Oil Color." Daniel Smith Artists' Materials.
• “Autoxidation.” McGraw Hill Encyclopedia. 8th ed. 1997.
• Flanders, Peggy J., How Oils Dry, 5 May 2006.
• Friedman, Ann, et al., Painting, World Book online, 46 Stetson St. #5 Brookline, MA. 10 May 2006.
• History of Oil Paint, CyberLipid.org, 5 May 2006.
• Mecklenburg, Marion, Autoxidation of Oil, 13 Jan 2006. The Painter's Handbook, Mark David Gottsegen. 11 June 2006.
• van den Berg, Jorit D.J., "Mobile and Stationary Phases in Traditional Aged Oil Paint" (PDF). (3.08 MiB), MOLART 2002. 8 May 2006

References

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)

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)

/* Ad-like */ On the contrary, the article ought to contain information and comparisons on the different commercial brands available. Any true artist will know, or want to know, the differences in characteristics and performance between the brands, and which established, or famous, or historical, or successful artists use which brands, and why? Wikipedia should be exactly the place to find such objectively unbiased information, instead of this redundant and unhelpful attitude against commercial brand-naming. Though I concede that such practical information may be best placed under a separate page or heading, perhaps in the form of the results of a survey of which well-known artists use which brands. Likeamanshand (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. This section is hopelessly outdated and I would love to delete it until someone can write something better. For now I have added a qualification sentence "The technical history of the introduction and development of oil paint, and the date of introduction of various additives (driers, thinners) is still -despite intense research over a long period - not well understood. The literature abounds with incorrect theories and information: in general, anything published before 1950 is to be treated with extreme scepticism.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.1.21 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Household paint

By far the biggest use of oil paint is as household gloss paint, much used on woodwork, aka alkyd paint. But not a single mention of it here. 82.31.207.100 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is because Alkyd not Oil is the binder. Arnoutf (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Toxicity section material removed

Relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

Relevant policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight

I've removed the below plus a lot of unsourced text. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinners such as turpentine and white spirit are flammable, carcinogenic, and can cause acute pulmonary distress. Some of them, particularly the poor grades of turpentine, have a strong odor, but even the more refined thinners such as odorless mineral spirits can be harmful to the health if used inappropriately. But because of the lack of adequate testing of these substances, the EPA has not made that determination, and no empirical evidence exists for this claim. [2]

surface covering

There needs to be an increase in the coverage of oil paints for surface coverings as a protectant or interior design feature. As this type of paint has a long history of use, unlike modern alkyd or acrylic paints, there should be quite a bit to cover. I do note that some of this coverage already exists at lead paint. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about oil paint's use in the fine arts. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is no reason for this claim of bias. See House painter and decorator for it's industrial use...Modernist (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDON'TLIKEIT seems like a little strong response to say to a benign, legitimate, and welcome question. The article is about oil paint. 99.99+% of oil paint is used for surface coating. I agree with 70.49.127.65. WP:OWN does not apply, either.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So add a section on wall covering...Modernist (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oil paint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603234713/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/19/oldest-oil-painting.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/19/oldest-oil-painting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

To check colours of oil.

Theory 2409:4063:6E8A:D657:91BB:2695:4E1D:FE6B (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)