Well...skimped might not be the best word, but more, were economical with their work. Going to art school, being in painting classes, exhibiting...you run into countless people that always give their two (or 100) cents as to what the best way to make work is. For a lot of people that I've met, using the best materials is usually something they bring up...usually after they say they like my work....and before I tell them I use cheap materials. Not that they're bad quality...just not $50 20ml tubes of oil paint....
Anyways, I've never felt bad about using what's more economical...it frees you of stress and well...it's expendable. You don't feel bad painting over a piece if the piece isn't work $300 in paint alone...
Anyways...apparently the old masters didn't always follow the "better work comes from better supplies" mantra either...and Ruebens even used a questionable surface in one of his most important works.
Well...What would you do if you're stuck in 17th century Antwerp with a few shillings, a forest of Sapwood around you and an idea for a painting burning through your skull?
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Rubens-masterpiece-“made-for-market”/25358
(i don't think they used shillings...but it sounds like old money doesn't it?)
No comments:
Post a Comment