But I’m sure you’re underestimating Hanneke if you think she’d make a change just because we suggested it. She will consider our comments and agree or disagree with them. But she is much too strong an artist to do something she doesn’t feel is right for herself.

Let us think of Colin’s recent boat picture. Our comments (I am  using my memory, not being on line right now): It was suggested  that the little light triangle to the left of the boat should be  eliminated as well as the very bottom, out-of-focus rear of the  boat. I modified Colin’s picture doing that and the picture lost  its magic. In my perception, the movement of the boat became  ordinary and the black hill in the middle became unpleasantly  accentuated.

Thus, my little exercise convinced me that, according to my taste,  Colin’s picture was perfect and should not be modified.

Did our comments have an effect on how Hanneke modified her grape  picture?

Looking at the full-size print-out of the 2007 picture (which looks  just like what I saw yesterday on my lap top), the cloth looks  darker, softer and more static. A print-out of the 2006 version  shows a cloth of a luminous, ethereal color. The cloth shimmers. It  makes me feel as if my eyes are bewitched and must dance across it.

Here are excerpt from the first five comments to the 2006 post that  were made by different people:

1)… I admire the grapes but think that the cloth somehow hangs on  the wall…
2) …I also see the friction between the grapes and the cloth…
3) …The grapes seem to be pasted onto the cloth in some places.  Perhaps some color shifts would help them to talk to one another.  The cloth does not quite look as if it were a surface…. I love the  colors, the light…
4) …I am mesmerized by the grapes. There is delicacy of the  ordinary piece of linen. I think you need a small plate or saucer  sitting right in front of the grapes…
5) This is my comment: The grapes and the cloth are luminous… But,  I could shoot myself for my next sentence: “Would it be possible to  modify the blue cloth itself to affect a greater sense of stability?”
In my comment (#5), I was reacting to comments #1-4 above  suggesting (a) an instability of the cloth and (b) putting another  item into the picture. I thought that another item in the picture  would destroy its simplicity. And I now think that the so-called  ‘instability’ may have been the magic that made my eyes dance over  the shimmering cloth.

Over the holidays, I was thinking of the cloth and eagerly  anticipating seeing it again in 2007. But seeing how the cloth has  changed, I wish I had said in 2006:

I love the coloring of the cloth.
I love its shimmering, its luminosity.

Please do not change it or my heart will be broken.

This is what has been going on in my mind over the last ten day  since you showed us your modified picture.
Putting aside my dreams about your picture and, instead of looking  at the new full-size version, I now focus on the close-ups, I can  honestly say that the edge of the cloth looks lovely in its  softness. But its changed loveliness does not reconcile me to my  loss of what I had loved about it earlier. Can I buy a photograph  of the shimmering cloth?

I think that linen is the safest way to go as well, especially for larger works. One problem with modern materials, they have no historical “track record,” by definition. Of course, one must always be cautious about assuming that modern versions of old materials are in fact the same as the historical ones.

Painting on paper is much maligned. Old paper was made of linen fibers, and linen handmade paper is still available today. Painting on this paper with oils is perfectly acceptable for small scale work, if the paper is properly sized. If it is not properly sized, it will absorb the oil and become brittle — the same as a linen canvas would if improperly sized.

There is a lovely painting of St. Jerome and the lion, circa 1430, from Jan van Eyck’s workshop. I think it is in Antwerp or Bruge. I have also seen a small Dürer oil painting on paper from around 1500, perhaps in München.

Me, I’ll stick with the stuff they wrapped mummies in — linen. We KNOW that stuff lasts more than five thousand years.

The jury is still deliberating acrylic gesso though. It’s more flexible than oil, so violates the “lean to fat” rule. Some painters have gone with alkyd gesso for that reason. I’ve found that alkyd gesso tends to be overly slick and non-absorbent unless roughed up with sandpaper though.

I came across a huge discussion of this topic over at artrenewal. I’ll see if I can find it again.

Franklin,

Masonite or related materials are used by many still life painters; I have seen paintings sold for many thousands of Euros painted on these types of artificial woods. At one time Masonite was regarded as a perfectly good art material; it has many practical advantages over wood. Unfortunately, it is not as stable as wood and is not well regarded by conservators. I think Hanneke’s work should be done on a better ground.

To mitigate the problems with Masonite, The Artist’s Handbook (5th edition) suggests a thick ground of acrylic gesso. To have such a ground even, it can be applied in many thin layers. In earlier editions, this book championed Masonite as an art material. The 5th edition reverses this position.

Regarding permanence, the key thing to remember is that the single largest danger to a painting’s survival is not the materials, but mediocrity. If artists paint great work with cheap materials, their work is more likely to survive than if they paint poorly with the best materials. Of course, great work with great materials can survive many centuries.

What would be an easy way to make a permenant panel for painting without using seasoned quarter-sawn wood panels? I’ve been thinking Hanneke could use use thick white matt board (acid free) of the type used in picture framing, pasted with starch past to a masonite or MDF panel. The matt board would be sized with a thin layer of acrylic gesso to prevent it from absorbing oil from the painting. If the Masonite became unstable after many years, the matt board could be removed and remounted. Anyone try this already? Any comments?

Thank you Karl for explaing that.. It certainly helps those of us who wish to learn!!!

When I taught traditional painting methods I asked my students to think of glazes as semi-opaque rather than semi-transparent. I myself previously had a wrong-headed idea about glazing, based incorrectly on watercolor and Titian’s dictum. You do, in fact, have to mix the paint and the medium with a knife and build form with it, as per Hanneke’s method.

As for what would finish it, I think it’s done. If anything, I’d look to see if the cast shadow under the grapes needs to be brought down closer to the value of the cast shadow of the towel on the table. In a perfect world there’d be another centimeter of white tablecloth at the right edge, but this is a panel, and it’s not worth worrying about. Exquisite work.

I know it’s hard work to describe technique, but you certainly succeeded. Thanks for answering all my specific questions as well.

With someone as good as Hanneke, it’s a crime to not document her methods. You are definitely a one who would count as a primary source since you are so intimate with the artist and an artist yourself. Beautiful.