For the past two years or so, I have been making large scale drawings on fairly inexpensive paper that comes on a 60 inch wide roll.
It has not been a bad paper to work with, but due to the size of these drawings, I would like to use something with a little more body; more impervious to denting and damage during transport and storage, and that might possibly be able to hang unframed. Since some of the higher quality papers can run about $200 per roll, I decided to experiment before investing
Aside from a heavier body, the main characteristics I am looking for are:
I initially loved the feel of this paper. It is thick and velvety, almost fleshy. However, on this complex drawing, I definitely did some erasing, and I found that even minimal erasing with a soft, kneaded eraser really mars the surface of the paper, pulling up little rolls of lint. The subsequent marks on the erased patches have a different texture, and you can forget about erasing a second time. Love affair over. We are still friends, though. I have used it for printmaking, and maybe if I go back to my no-erasing rule, I will try it again.
Here are my results:
Fabriano Artistico (140 lb.)
This was the first flag drawing and my least favorite paper. To begin with, I had trouble making very light marks-one of the keys to avoiding erasing. The bigger problem, however, was the laid pattern. I don’t mind texture, but this laid pattern creates a pronounced and geometric pattern of dots. This is particularly bothersome in the lightly shaded areas, such as the shadows in the white stripes.
|Detail of laid pattern|
Aside from erasing, the other thing I don’t like doing is “shading” using a blending stump or (yuck) fingers. I know some artists do it nicely but I prefer to obtain a range of shades through varying the pressure used. In this case I ended up breaking my own rule and using mineral spirits to try to distribute the charcoal more evenly. It sort of worked but not really to my satisfaction. This paper also did not allow me to build up the darks as much as I would have liked, despite the texture of the surface. It did accept erasing with better results than the BFK Rives. It may be that the laid pattern is useful for a specific subject matter, but it doesn’t appeal to me currently. The back side has the same texture. I wish I did like working with this paper because it is the widest (59 inches) I have seen in higher quality papers.
Arches Watercolor Paper, Cold Pressed (Bright White, 140 lb.)
This paper is currently my front-runner. It has a noticeable texture but since it is produced from felts rather than mesh, it has a more organic feel than the patterned texture of laid paper. Although erased lines leave a fairly strong ghost, the paper surface stood up to the friction better than some of the others. Apparently this is due to the sizing. The texture did allow for some pretty dark darks and sharp lines, which I liked. As watercolor paper it is meant to be able to stand up to wet media without buckling, so it has a pretty sturdy heft. I would even call it stiff in comparison to some of the others. I think that might give larger drawings a nice presence.
Arches Watercolor Paper, Hot Pressed (Bright White, 140 lb.)
Onward to Flag number three. The nature of hot pressed paper is that it is smoother than cold press. At first I did like the smoother texture and I think it might be nice for someone doing smooth, subtle shading, or working in graphite. Light lines erased well but the surface did abrade a bit. The biggest problem with this paper was the inability to build up darks. After a certain point the surface cannot hold any more charcoal, and the dust simply falls off the paper. Subsequent applications really just push the charcoal around on the surface, rather than sticking in place. I relied heavily on a black pastel to get the darkest areas. The overall look is much softer than the Arches cold press, without the ability to get really crisp lines or dark darks.
Stonehenge (White, 90 lb)
What about you? I would love to hear your experiences with charcoal and paper. Anyone try charcoal on canvas? How did that go?
Happy New Year Everyone,
It is the beginning of the first full “back to work” week of the year. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been thinking about my studio goal for 2014. Although I am a little nervous about it, I have decided to commit to a total of 750 hours: 500 in the studio and 250 managing marketing and the business side of things. This equals an average of about 15 hours a week-I hope I do it!
I spent the first few days after New Year’s taking stock of 2013 and outlining some preliminary goals for this year. It’s pretty interesting to write out a list of your accomplishments over the year; I recommend you try it.
For me, dedicating 500 hours to art meant that I accomplished the following in 2013:
- Three large scale (5-6 foot) drawings
- Six 22×30″ drawings
- One 30×40 mixed media painting
- A small edition of lithographs based on an older drawing
|“Picked Clean,” 2013. (48×60)|
- Submitted work to six shows (Accepted in two)
- Finally had good photos taken of my work
- Resurrected my website, which had been down for TWO years
- Wrote a grant request to the Arts & Science Council of Mecklenburg County and was selected for funding-more on that later.
- Gave a talk with my mother to a group of art history students at Queens University
- And of course, started this blog
It’s difficult for me to trumpet my own accomplishments like that (an issue I will have to get past if I’m going to market my work seriously), but the important point is that I’m sure I would not have gotten this much done if I hadn’t held myself to this 500 hour goal.
I would have liked to have produced a few more completed pieces this year, so that will be a goal for 2014. On the other hand, some of the marketing tasks, like getting portfolio shots and fixing my website, were long overdue and I am glad they are done.
As for 2014, I have some good preliminary plans and am looking forward to seeing how many goals 750 hours will allow me to accomplish.