Have you been asked to just GIVE someone artwork?

[stlukesguild]

Yes... I think that most artists... since the demise of the apprenticeship system... have needed to develop their own technique to painting or art-making. When I moved toward pastels, I began immediately with toned paper thanks to a fellow teacher who had been working at a paper mill during the summer and gave me a dozen huge rolls of heavy brown paper. Initially, I worked directly on the paper. While working on one of these early paintings, I found I wanted to make a huge change. With oil paint I would have just painted it out. I started to erase... but it was taking forever... so I picked up a couple of bottles (small) of crafter's acrylic... which is very matte... in a color almost the same as the paper. This worked incredibly well. I also found that the paint had a better tooth than the paper so I started priming everything with an underpainting of this acrylic. With time, I switched to an underpainting that was more reddish in hue because I liked having little areas of red show through in the tessellations. With time, I used this under everything except the fleshtones (which ended up looking too pink). I started using areas of flat acrylic with time, realizing that the matte acrylic harmonized well with the pastels... and often I would sand the acrylics revealing underlying colors and creating a surface that looked like weathered fresco... which agin went well with the pastels... at least in the way I was using them. The final big innovation for me was adding gold (metallic) leaf. One of my studio partners pointed out that the flattened space and the patterns in my paintings made them look like gigantic illuminated manuscripts. "All that wass needed" he joked, "was gold leaf". I thought the idea was crazy... but ended up trying it out and found it worked well. It makes me feel that one of the reasons techniques are seldom taught in art schools is because so many artists/teachers have developed their own working methods that don't follow the traditional manner of applying paint.

 

[ZenDruid]

It makes me feel that one of the reasons techniques are seldom taught in art schools is because so many artists/teachers have developed their own working methods that don't follow the traditional manner of applying paint.

After reading your post, I wonder if shellac couldn't be used for priming heavy construction paper. Has anyone here ever used shellac as a primer or undercoating in their work? It's been around since ancient Egypt...made from the shell of the lac bug...sold ready mixed in hardware stores, or in flakes for dissolving in alcohol...used as a sanding primer in wooden furniture finishing, which is how I've used it. It dries quickly to the touch, but could be used as a bonding agent for metallic leaf. It may be cheaper than some of the specialized products found in art supply stores.

 

[Artyczar]

I have never used shellac on paper--not sure you can? But I use a mixture of shellac and Dh Alcohol (1 part shellac to 2 parts denatured alcohol) to seal birch wood panels. I used five coats of it. It is a very long process, or maybe not that long, but a pain in the ass because you have to do it to the front (very evenly), the sides, and the back). You sand it with a very fine grit (400+ with a flat block)) in between light coats (when it fully dries). You can be a lot more sloppy on the back, of course.

 

[ZenDruid]

But I use a mixture of shellac and Dh Alcohol (1 part shellac to 2 parts denatured alcohol) to seal birch wood panels. I used five coats of it.

I never used that much, two coats tops on furniture, sanding in between, then applying varnish. I can see why you find it a PITA, but on the other hand you're creating archival artifacts for customers and they deserve your best. As far as priming paper, I guess there's only one way to find out. I have paper and I have shellac so I'll get off my computer chair and give it a test. Stay tuned.

 

[stlukesguild]

ZenDruid;

One of the artists I have followed on social media for quite a few years, Edgar Jerins, uses shellac over his drawings before building this up with transparent layers of oil paint.

 

[ZenDruid]

I have paper and I have shellac so I'll get off my computer chair and give it a test. Stay tuned.

Keeping it simple, here are two sheets of shellacked paper. The top one is common 80# sketchbook paper that I applied about 4 coats of amber flake shellac diluted in alcohol. They soaked through and the paper got so wet it did warp some. After drying it mostly flattened out. I drew a simple cartoon with an ink brush pen and that did not bleed through...so there was some priming quality to the shellac coating.

The second is an ink brush pen sketch on inkjet computer paper. I gave it a single wash coating on the left hand side. There was no smearing of the ink or warping of the paper although the shellac did bleed through.

So that's that, I think shellac does have some application as primer on paper, among many, time for a beer.

 

[Artyczar]

Yes... I think that most artists... since the demise of the apprenticeship system... have needed to develop their own technique to painting or art-making. When I moved toward pastels, I began immediately with toned paper thanks to a fellow teacher who had been working at a paper mill during the summer and gave me a dozen huge rolls of heavy brown paper. Initially, I worked directly on the paper. While working on one of these early paintings, I found I wanted to make a huge change. With oil paint I would have just painted it out. I started to erase... but it was taking forever... so I picked up a couple of bottles (small) of crafter's acrylic... which is very matte... in a color almost the same as the paper. This worked incredibly well. I also found that the paint had a better tooth than the paper so I started priming everything with an underpainting of this acrylic. With time, I switched to an underpainting that was more reddish in hue because I liked having little areas of red show through in the tessellations. With time, I used this under everything except the fleshtones (which ended up looking too pink). I started using areas of flat acrylic with time, realizing that the matte acrylic harmonized well with the pastels... and often I would sand the acrylics revealing underlying colors and creating a surface that looked like weathered fresco... which agin went well with the pastels... at least in the way I was using them. The final big innovation for me was adding gold (metallic) leaf. One of my studio partners pointed out that the flattened space and the patterns in my paintings made them look like gigantic illuminated manuscripts. "All that wass needed" he joked, "was gold leaf". I thought the idea was crazy... but ended up trying it out and found it worked well. It makes me feel that one of the reasons techniques are seldom taught in art schools is because so many artists/teachers have developed their own working methods that don't follow the traditional manner of applying paint.

I wanted to reply to this yesterday, but alas, I only have limited time on the forums each day.

I was going to say that I envy you and those who find a style and technique and STICK with it while developing it over time. I feel like I've done that with some of my work, ie, certain oil techniques in a few different bodies of work, but I am kinda all over the place because of my wide interests in using many media. If I work in watercolor, it's cartoony and illustrative. If I work in oils, it's either the abstract stuff or the landscapes (which is also somewhat abstract-ed), and then there is the mixed media with the collage (also oil, but with paper and sewing), and on it goes.

I feel like, had I done an apprenticeship or gone to school, I'd hone in on one thing, develop it, repeat it, and probably promote it much easier to galleries since I know they love that consistency thing. Instead, it takes years to build into each series, the dates on the pieces get antiquated, and galleries don't seem to like that. Some of those pieces also get sold, and that breaks up the series as well.

One of the longest bodies of work I did were the garment pattern pieces from 2003-ish onward, but I had to start evolving those into other realms. It became a bit too conservative for my liking. Too one-dimensional and literal, which is why I began adding lettering and cartooning, personal stuff/family members. Then I got bored with that and moved on again. I have found that galleries don't love it when you make changes.

 

[Mississippi Hippie]

Yes, and Yes, I gift, not everything, of course.

 

[JennieJo]

I'm a bit confused. I gift some of my artworks reasonably often, usually to folk who I know appreciate my work, family or friends etc. The piece is often something I know they will enjoy or reminds them of something. A scene from my son's hiking, a favourite surf beach to a family member, a local mountain scene to an old friend from where he lived locally..... and so on. They are always framed or when sent away, are packed especially due to the delicate pastel work. Some of you have even seen these works here on CreativeSpark.
Over the past weeks, I have been doing some pleinair around the local village and area, and often get passerby's looking over my shoulder etc. A number of folk in the village know I paint, and I have received some nice compliments. One chap often complimented me, but recently I was stumped when he came up and asked directly - " Can you do one for me, and sign it , "For XXXX from Murray". No mention of any compensation, eg some fish, work, money etc etc , the usual barter around here. I was a bit taken aback and passed it off as a "maybe....." and carried on painting. Then the other day, he mentioned to my other half, that it would be a "nice friendly neighbourly thing to give him a painting".
It's not like I am averse to gifting work, but this feels off. I value my work, cost of materials and the time it has taken to get to where I am.
I am not openly selling my work, but a freebie "just because they asked", seems like "they like it but don't value it". Does that make sense?
I'm tempted to just suggest a barter, but I'm also a little confused as to what I am, an "artist" a "hobbist" or simply naive.
What would you do and what's your take on the situation?

Yeah! A bit strange. I'm a bit like you in that I'm happy to gift my works for a reason. But, I'm more likely to say happy to barter, what have you got to trade? or, depending on their attitude: my minimum price is xxx. You good with that