Talk:Pastel

changes

"The procedure and materials make it almost impossible for the artist to fix mistakes. " This statement is true only some of the time. Depending on style or technique, it is often quite easy to fix mistakes. Many serious artists of this medium today employ methods quite different from those of a century ago.

I will add to this page: more names, and historical detail could be added.

There must be some more Societies covering pastels.

Jackiespeel 16:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Artists Section

This section needs a lot of cleaning up. Anyone who is familiar with pastel artists should contribute. About half of the artists listed as contempory American artists are non-notables.Wanda5088 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wanda's comment. I'm familiar with pastels artists (but new to wikipedia) and have added the Pastel Society (the UK one - established in 1898) and deleted a personal website. Should there be a separate section for pastel societies? There are quite a lot. Also this page seems to be being used by individual non-notable artists to highlight their websites. Does there need to be some criteria for which artists get mentioned by name and links included to their websites to avoid this page looking like a portal for e-bay?Cosmopolitancats 09:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regrouped all references to pastel artists into one section Cosmopolitancats 08:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has removed all the links to reputable contemporary artists without having the courtesy of explaining why they are doing this in these pages. While there are certainly people who add their own names in without realising what is required, if you don't know anything about pastels please do not mess with these pages. If you're removing names on the grounds it needs validation then please state this first and say how much you need and from what - and then leave some time for somebody to supply. You have removed the names of some of the most well known artists in the USA eg Wolf Kahn and Daniel Greene! It's not only artists that are dead who are in museums! Cosmopolitancats 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated artist's section and reinstated references to Wolf Kahn and Daniel Greene (see their wikipedia articles as to why). Also included Chardin and changed images to gallery format so more can be included - sourced through wiki commons. Also removed the content which related to art history movements and created a new section for pastels in art history. Cosmopolitancats

More realism

Personally I like the medium very much, so I can understand the eulogy of pastel in the original article. Honesty demands however that we stop avoiding some embarrassing truths ;o):

The medium is often called "chalks" for a good reason: historically most pastel contained a chalk component and of course the lighter hues, and thus the majority of available colours, typically still do.
Yes, as such pastel is very stable. But the light permanency of pastel is the worst of all media. Also the paintings are of course very vulnerable in general.

Also the article mentioned that pastel "reflects light like a prism". However the opposite is true: precisely because there is no darkening refraction by a binder layer the colours are so bright.--MWAK 10:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence required for the above statement regarding "chalks" and the "light permanency of pastels is the worst of all media". Source required for statement in order to verify. Certain pigments (not pastels) have a lightfastness issue - therefore it depends on the pigment used. The problem with lightfastness in relation to specific pigments is a problem experienced across various media. Many older pastels are kept in rooms with low light because of the fragility of the support rather than the pastel.Cosmopolitancats 07:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be immediately obvious that as the pigment of a pastel layer isn't protected by a binder material, any pigment that isn't perfectly permanent will fade faster applied in pastel form than in any other medium. Only a minority of pigments is perfectly permanent. And of course the lighter hues are formed by adding chalk, kaolin or gypsum. They are none the worse for it and it is much cheaper than using white pigments :o). A good technical source is: M.Shelley, "Pastel" in Media and Techniques of Works of Art on Paper, New York University Conservation Center of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York, 1999. --MWAK 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is a published paper available to the public - or is it? Perhaps you could quote from it? The International Association of Pastel Societies section on states as follows

"Pastel is pure pigment, the same pigment used in making all fine art paints. All top quality pastel brands are permanent when applied to conservation ground and properly framed. Pastel that has not been sprayed with fixative contains no liquid binder that may cause other media to darken, yellow, crack or blister with time. Pastels from the 16th century exist today as fresh as the day they were painted."

More importantly see http://www.pastelsocietyofamerica.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=35 This is a paper "The Care and Preservation of Pastels" by Marjorie Shelley, Sherman Fairchild Conservator in Charge of Photographs and Works on Paper, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Her only concern is the same of that of most professional pastellists, that the work should be protected from environmental damage, which if done will enable pastel works to remain in good condition for many years. Her concerns on lightfastness relate to pigment and not pastel (ie a universal problem for any art media using the pigments which cause problems) Please refer to the article for ways in which work can be protected. Most of this is not unlike the sort of protection recommended for most works on paper.
Cosmopolitancats 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the lighter hues are typically not formed with white pigment is indicated in the Shelley article by giving the description "a blend of finely ground pigment and white extender", the "extender" not being a pigment of course. See also: http://www.mfa.org/_cameo/frontend/material_description.asp?name=pastel&language=1&MaterialName=pastel&Synonyms=&Description=&Composition=&CAS=&MohsHardness=&MolecularWeight=&Density=&efrIndex=&MeltingPoint=&BoilingPoint=&OtherProperties=&Safety=&Authority=&Reference=&Image=&Page=1&NumPerPage=10&Browse=0.

I have to admit the source doesn't explicitly address the permanency problem; probably as this is simply a given with High Pigment Concentration Techniques, such as pastel and gouache. The wikiarticle now reads "Pastels which have used pigments which change colour or tone when exposed to light have suffered the same problems as can be seen in some oil paintings using the same pigment", which is highly deceptive. Yes, they are the same problems — only an order of magnitude worse :o). --MWAK 09:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your published and verifiable evidence for "an order of magnitude worse" being........?Cosmopolitancats 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarized text

see here: http://ctpastelsociety.com/aboutpastels.html --Jeiki Rebirth 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote most of it.--MWAK 15:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new sections

I've added three new sections (pastel supports; pastel protection; pastel societies), revised some existing headings; added new text and links within the new sections; revised text within the artist section and deleted non-notable names (with no reference on the discussion page) to the reference to contemporary USA artists. Maybe the debate about oil pastels (are they really pastel?) needs highlighting - and maybe a separate sub-section for oil pastels needs to be created?Cosmopolitancats 10:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of pastels

This needs more work. There has been much debate between soft pastellists and oil pastellists as to whether or not oil pastel counts as a pastel - plus I note oil pastel has a separate section within wikipedia which I have now referenced in the links section. I'm surprised by the inclusion of the notion of a waterbased pastel without any source. It's not any pastel I know - although there are waterbased crayons and waterbased coloured pencils - but these are different. If there is no comment to the contrary I propose to delete on my next visit to this page. Cosmopolitancats 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted a comment about the debate about 'what is a pastel' and inserted the definition used by the Pastel Society UK as to what is acceptable in their exhibition - which is not the same as 'what is a pastel' but does indicate the emphasis on dry media. Cosmopolitancats 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastel manufacturers and details about 'softness' of soft pastels

This is information which is often sought by current and prospective pastellists - but is not yet included on this page. Suggest external links to manufacturers of different brands as a minimum. Need to consider how best to comment on the 'softness' issue. Cosmopolitancats 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major redraft August 2006

On reviewing this page again it was still looking somewhat confused due to facts being in the wrong sections so I've done a major clean-up/re-ordering.redraft of the sections covering:

introduction (and added in the other ways in which the term 'pastel' is used. The intro dated back to an early draft and included info that was better suited within the sections covering detail. Now much briefer and less historical plus covers all ways in which 'pastel' is used in the engisl language.
pastel media. This failed to make sufficient distinction between dry media and pastel using other/different forms of manufacture. Oil pastels already has it owns section and hence this page ought to be more devoted to the most common form of pastel - the dry pastel (hard and soft)
pastel protection. Page previously had a lot of emphasis about problems in the past (all rather negative). Overall, there has been a failure to distinguish between problems experienced with pastel paintings which are due to pigment or support as opposed to the pastel itself. This has been replaced by a summary of how pastels can be permanent.
pastel artists, Moved all references to pastel artists and movements in pastel art into one section to avoid repetition. This section needs expanding with links to prominent artists.

I've also included a new link to the French pastellist society. Other links needed to other national pastel societies - and I'll add these in due course.

Finally - I've included section headings for all previous contributions so people can see more easily how this entry has developed Cosmopolitancats 09:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a very fundamental problem regarding conservation that is inherent to the medium itself. In itself a pastel layer is just some loose pigment or filler. In the end it will lose all cohesion and fall off. So pastel paintings self-destruct. If you apply a fixative to solve this problem, the fixative will in the end destroy the painting. Either way it's doomed. Sad but true.--MWAK 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify your source for your assertion and quote it. Note that pastels usually have an inert binder and are not "just some loose pigment or filler". Evidence of many pastel artworks would suggest that the support on which they are done is far more frail than the pastel layer. In other words the paper falls off the pastel and not the other way around. The Degas pastels in the Musee d'Orsay are under low light to protect the support not the pastel which, apart from where fugitive pigments have been used, are still in remarkably good condition. Cosmopolitancats 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I am a bit lazy in searching references. But that's mainly because your position — also not referenced, I might add :o) — is so much at odds with received opinion. Yes, pastel sticks are usually kept together with the help of some binder but that cohesion is largely destroyed when applying the medium to the paper. The pigment isn't somehow glued to the paper by the binder; the adhesion is caused by, well, simple adhesion forces. This leads to an inherent vulnerability. Even a light touch by a finger might damage the art work. In practice this was of course solved by — besides using gouache, many "pastels" are actually mixed technique works — applying generous amounts of fixative, in fact turning the pigment layer into a paint layer. This offers a lot of protection but also poses the danger that the fixative will discolour or degenerate. Looking at museum pieces is not a valid methodology to determine the conservation problems of pastel paintings; those you see are obviously the ones that have survived in a well enough condition to be exhibited. Countless others didn't. And I am convinced you would be shocked if you could compare the original brilliance of Degas' work with what is left of it. But I'm not claiming pastel as such isn't stable; in fact it is potentially the most stable of all media because of its low binder content. In the end it's always the binder that destroys paintings. But that very same lack of binder causes a vulnerability to physical shocks and light. The pastel painting has to be kept flat in a dry box, otherwise in the end its luck will run out. And, yes, the paper is also quite vulnerable and the cheaper types self-destruct as well. But isn't that yet another danger inherent to pastel? Of course it all depends on the time frame you choose; if you are content with your artwork lasting as long as you do yourself, pastel is safe enough ;o).--MWAK 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some very quick links: useful remarks by Ross Merrill: http://www.artistsmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1574 , http://www.artistsmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1835 ,

http://www.artistsmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1736

And then there's this concern: http://www.artistsmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1755

--MWAK 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Added the article by Marjorie Shelley (Sherman Fairchild Conservator in Charge of Photographs and Works on Paper The Metropolitan Museum of Art) on the care and presernvation of pastels to the list of external links
Cosmopolitancats 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some text from the "See Also" that I thought was self-promotion - a blurb about a website that was just started a few days ago supposedly. Emm 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you draw or paint with pastels?

I'm wondering if you draw or paint with pastels. If I know that, I guess I'll know whether I should talk about pastel paintings or drawings! Could this info be added to the article? DBlomgren 16:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PanPastel Colors

For the first time, since pastels have existed as a medium, pastel colors are available in a pan format in addition to the existing stick format. This is significantly changing the way the pastel medium is being used. And is one of the most important new developments in artists colors generally. I would like to add this to the pastel page which currently talks about pastels only being available in a stick format. Please advise. Pastel2008 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the new presentation is indeed 'significantly changing the way' pastel is being used, then this information can be included in the article, so long as it is supported with neutral published sources (all of this is well explained in WP:EL, WP:V, and WP:NPOV). If it is presented in such a way as to appear to be advertising a product, it will be deleted. JNW (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possible source is the article about this in the current issue of the Pastel Journal [1]. But again, the information needs to be presented in a neutral (i.e., without espousing a particular product or maker) fashion. JNW (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone make a new section about the name of the pastel colors please? (e.g. pink, lime, skyblue, lavender, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.68.204 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect for 'Scumbling'

The 'Scumbling' link redirects readers to 'Glazing' article. But scumbling involves application of a layer of opaque paint, whereas glazing uses transparent paint. (see dictionary definitions). I will try to undo the redirect, if no-one objects. TonyClarke (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]