Florida Watercolor Society

For example purposes I will use the image requirements of Florida Watercolor Society.

“All digital images must have a resolution of 300 dpi and 1800 pixels on the longest side of the image, either in height or width.”

A box appears and find the image file that you want to resize. Click on it to get it to appear in the file mane box and then click Open.

A side menu appears where you then move your pointer to Image Size and click on it.

A dialogue box appears where you enter the size you need for the entry. In the box marked Resolution type in 300. On the lower left click on the box Resample Image. Now go to the box that corresponds to the longest side of the image(Width or Height) and type in 1800.

Your image is now sized for the entry. Now you need to save your new sized image.

The “Save As” dialogue box appears where you enter the name the image must be called according to the prospectus. Make sure jpg is selected in the “Format” box.

“The digital files must be named as follows: last name in CAPS + first name in lower case, #1 or #2 and the title of the painting. The file format must be jpg. Example : DOEjohn #1_landscape.jpg”.

In the upper part of the box find the Save In area. If the folder listed is not where you want to save your resized image, use the drop down menu to locate and then click on the place where you want to save the image. Click Save .

Remember where you save your image so when you email or put it on a cd it will be easy to find.

If you do not already have software to rescale your image to the required dimension for entry into the 2010 Florida Watercolor Society Exhibition, this might help you.

Go to http://www.gimp.org where you will find free software that you can use to resize your image.

Email Ginny Weber at ginron@gmail.com to request a complete tutorial.

Some members from our Membership have asked the board to revisit the submission requirements for acceptable surfaces. In view of this request, at a recent FWS Board meeting it was decided to revisit the submission requirements ( for painting entries) in the prospectus. The board decided to ask Richard French and Steve Rogers to write an article on this subject and those articles are posted on the web site under the news button.

We are opening a forum for discussion about which surfaces will be acceptable. At some time in the future you will be asked to vote for one of the following which will stand for a five year moratorium.

#2.All Surfaces developed for watermedia are acceptable (paper, yupo, clayboard, aquaboard, ampersand , etc.) All must be under Plexiglas.

When this issue c omes to a member’s vote, the decision will stand for a minimum of five years. Please read the editorial page online under the news button and send your replies or comments on this subject to:

Mary Louise Ringers, 22373 Panther Loop, Bradenton, FL., 34202, ringersart@gmail.com

Stay tuned to the newsletter or go to the NEWS button on the website for selected forum comments and letters. If you are unable to get to a computer to read the articles perhaps you can have a friend print this.

This issue has come up before, but it is time to make an informed and fair decision.

Aquabord and Claybord made by Ampersand are substrates that I feel should be allowed in FWS competitions. It is disingenuous at best to allow YUPO which is not paper at all, and not allow Aquabord and Claybord. The following are some of my reasons for their acceptance.

Aquabord has a surface like cold pressed paper and Claybord is smooth like hot pressed paper. Both surfaces are museum quality surfaces and the National Conservator in Washington has said that they are the most archival products available to contemporary painters. Further, Aquabord was developed specifically for the medium of watercolor.

Aquabord and Claybord are clay coated panels that give watercolorists unprecedented freedom and control. They allow color to be lifted back to white easily while leaving the richest most vibrant colors possible. The surfaces are extremely durable and will not warp, crack or bend like paper nor will there be lint residue, torn paper or the need for masking fluid.

Ampersand makes the panels from aspen tree fibers that have the most neutral PH of any natural fiber and then seals them with a barrier to prevent unwanted migration. No toxic materials or dangerous emissions are used in the process to manufacture the panels. THE PANELS ARE MADE FROM FSC CERTIFIED SUSTAINABLE U.S. FORESTS USING COMPLETELY GREEN MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, AND ALL MATERIALS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

For those of us who are TRANSPARENT WATERCOLOR PURISTS, Aquabord and Claybord can only enhance our use of the medium. Try a free sample of Aquabord, call Ampersand: 1-800-822-1939 or email: HYPERLINK "mailto:bords@ampersandart.com" bords@ampersandart.com For more information go to: HYPERLINK "http://www.ampersandart.com" www.ampersandart.com

Some of the Watercolor Societies that accept Aquabord and Claybord in their competitions are: Oregon, Houston, Toronto, Vermont, Southern, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Montana and Tallahassee to name a few.

The American Watercolor Society was formed in 1866 with the stated purpose to “promote the art of watercolor painting in America”. This history on the AWS website goes on to say, “Obviously, this was intended as a way of combating the feeling of many artists, as well as non-artists, who viewed watercolor as a sketching medium”. This defensive stance on the part of watercolor societies, after 140 years, is still justified for this reason and others.

There are a number of societies dedicated to the other more established mediums, such as The Oil Painters of America - OPA, The Pastel Society of America - PSA, the National Society of Painters in Casein and Acrylic - NSPCA to name a few. These are comparatively new and I first believed that they were created more to provide the kind of support and camaraderie that the watercolors societies have enjoyed as well as a means to showcase their work and compete with fellow painters. I now understand after looking at their respective websites, that they were organized to promote a clearly defined traditional handling of their medium, surely in response to what they perceived was happening in Oil, or Pastel, etc. and they make no bones about this in their statements of purpose and in how they define what constitutes an acceptable painting in their exhibitions.

As watercolor societies extend the definition of watercolor to include more and more alternative mediums, basically anything which is water-soluble and not oil paint, as well as opening up their exhibitions to alternative supports, i.e. Yupo (an opaque plastic sheet, self-described as synthetic paper), clayboard, watercolor canvas, and something called Tiger Rag, they have essentially lost all of their defining elements. It is a spurious argument to suppose that limiting the definition of watercolor in the context of a society dedicated to its promotion somehow limits artistic creativity in a general sense. The NSPCA limits paintings in their society to those done with Casein, Acrylic, or Egg Tempera, all of which are acceptable in most watercolor societies along with traditional watercolor. The PSA limits works submitted to its exhibition to those done in “traditional soft pastel only”, thereby excluding even other forms of pastel. And as to the OPA, we all know that oil and water don’t mix, at least until recently, but not only does this organization limit submissions to oil paint it only permits traditional representational paintings. I have yet to see where these groups include watercolor, nor should they, and yet we beat ourselves up or allow other to do so, because we’re not inclusive enough. If someone wants to paint oil, pastel, casein, acrylic, egg tempera, or use pencil, etc. there are dedicated and defined societies in which they can participate. Hey, if you want strip naked and make “performance art” in a Soho Gallery, paint on metal, or sing opera, there is a venue for you to express yourself that way.

We have three alternative definitions for what watercolor is: The first one we have already discussed, “anything goes.” On the other end of the spectrum is the Transparent Watercolor Society of America – TWSA and other watercolor societies with a rigid set of rules defining what is and is not acceptable. The TWSA prospectus states: “please carefully read the following to guide you :acceptable entries: Transparent watercolor applied in a transparent manner on a single sheet of untreated 100% rag or cotton paper, free of pigment and/or embedded materials with the use of pencil for planning marks only unacceptable entries: Paintings created with the use of white paint, acrylic, gouache, ink, pastel, metallic/iridescent paint, collage or surface constructions; the use of gesso, priming, embossing or varnishing as well as Yupo or any other type of alternative surface. This society has some 1000 members and clearly provides a venue for that legitimate point of view. Most of my paintings would pass their very careful scrutiny. John Singer Sargeant’s watercolors would not.

Personally I would define watercolor as anything that Sargeant used when he painted watercolor or a reasonable modern extension of that. Remember what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in landmark decision in 1964...."I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.”. Or basically in our case, “If it looks like a watercolor then it is a watercolor.” This is how courts determine plagiarism. If the average man says it looks like something was copied they can award damages.

The American Watercolor Society definition for entry requirements has changed from when I first wrote this article in 2007 for American Artist to: The Annual Exhibition is open to all artists working in water soluble media: watercolor, acrylic, casein, gouache and egg tempera on paper. Canvas is not accepted. The National Watercolor Society definition in their by-laws states: A watercolor is aquamedia on paper which is unvarnished. The term "watercolor" shall be deemed to exclude work in encaustic or oil. One would think that these definitions are only a different way of making the same simple statement, but this all depends on what we mean by the word “paper”. No I’m not kidding! According to Janet Walsh, the president of AWS in 2007and Chris Van Winkle, the president of NWS in 2007, both of these “mother societies” accept, de facto, paintings on Yupo in spite of the their respective definitions. Other synthetic substrata like watercolor canvas which could not be construed as paper are excluded. Contrast this with the statement made by Loa Sprung, former president of the National Watercolor Society: "Yupo is one hundred percent plastic. My husband was an authority on all plastics and he said this was a fact. Also it will age and crack depending on where and how it is stored. It may last fifty years but it can last longer if acrylic (another plastic though water soluble) is painted on the yupo. It sort of holds it all together. I feel it should not be accepted in our annuals. If some day the board may want to make the member show mixed media and yupo friendly so be it."

I personally love the beautiful, transparent watercolors painted by George James on Yupo and I also love the beautiful, transparent watercolors painted on acrylic-gessoed paper by Bill James. I would hate to see either of these exceptional artists “defined” out of an exhibition as is the case in some of the transparent societies. Ironic because these works are, in fact, the most transparent paintings in the shows I have judged or been a part of. So I have come to understand the “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy of AWS and NWS with respect to Yupo and I agree with it. But remember that Watercolor societies still find it necessary to defend the permanence of their medium, its marketability, and other issues and I feel this is still a problem with Yupo and some of the other new support surfaces. Legion Paper, the USA distributor of Yupo will not attest to its permanence and instructs artists painting in watercolor to spray their watercolor paintings with a clear varnish. Remember that when a watercolor is varnished as Yupo needs to be because of its inherent fragility, it violates the “unvarnished” definition of some watercolor societies

So we see how very, very hard it is to define a middle ground definition of watercolor. I know that the rank and file membership of the Florida Watercolor Society were extremely unhappy about the interpretation of the 2007 definition of watercolor and the repeated attempts to extend this even further. The comments I heard over and over again about that exhibition in Daytona Beach were “this show does not even look like a watercolor show”, or “there is way too much impasto and heavy acrylic”, “these all look like oil paintings”. I’m not including the expletives! What I heard these members asking for, in desperation was the inclusion in the FWS definition of watercolor terms like “aqueous” or “predominantly transparent. And certainly not allow acrylic on canvas.

I believe any surface is acceptable. I believe the issue of what constitutes "Watercolor mediums" is more important. It is the paint itself that matters, not the surface it is painted on. So long as the paint can be reactivated and dissolved with water (not alcohol) 6 months later, then it is a water medium.

Regarding the new rulings on allowable surfaces, I would like to submit my thoughts as follows:

Allow the use of watercolor canvas. It comes stretched as well as canvas boards. However, this type of surface should not be under plexi (per Northgate framing). The stretched canvas can be gallery wrapped as part of the painting or the edges painted, of course with no staples showing (per most galleries and art centers). I have also painted with watercolor on other types of canvas. It makes sense that since you allow all types of watermedia including acrylics, textures and some collage, all types of canvases should be allowed and plexi should not be required.

Since many watercolor artists have evolved to using different watermedia together, it seems that it's time for some changes.

I read with interest the notice about considering acceptable surfaces for watercolor submissions to FWS.

I would strongly support the use of all surfaces developed for watermedia as acceptable for FWS shows. I am a fairly new artist and I love to explore new colors, new surfaces, and new techniques. Some wonderful work has been completed on alternate surfaces and I don’t think the surface impacts the effectiveness or skill level of the artist. Artists using watermedia on surfaces other than traditional rag paper are equally skilled and should be recognized as such. Art evolves and so should FWS.

I would encourage FWS to be progressive and inclusive when considering this issue. Let’s vote to allow all surfaces as acceptable in FWS shows.

The question of whether to use only watercolor paper or other supports, I personally started out learning to paint in the transparent watercolor tradition and did so for several years. In the last few years I have learned to appreciate the freedom of expression available when using some of the newer supplies available to us. I now use anything and everything with much more enjoyment than ever. I prefer the freedom to use all available materials, but will follow the parameters for entering the show no matter what they are. If I have a vote I vote for a looser interpretation of watercolor painting. I do not think any collage or pastel should be included.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on allowable surfaces for FWS competition.

Though I understand the purists' desire to keep the competition fair by insisting on an only untreated paper policy, I must choose a position which allows the most freedom of expression. So long as the painting is done in a watercolor manner with water soluble paints, I consider it a watercolor painting which should be eligible for any FWS competition.

Hi, Mary Louise. I used to be a member of FWS, but dropped out because I could never enter my work into the annual show. I am an Aquabord supporter and use it almost exclusively. I use watercolor and sometimes fluid acrylics in a transparent manner. Aquabord acts like Arches 300# cold press, and if the work is under plexi, the viewer really cannot tell if it is paper or board. I do not seal my aquabord work if it is under plexi to comply with show requirements. If YUPO is accepted, Aquabord should be accepted.

The issue of what substrates should be allowed for FWS Exhibition competition is a valid issue to once again discuss. The opportunity to use new and specifically developed surfaces for watermedia is important to the growth of our artists. To me there is no reason to deny use of Yupo, Tiger Rag Aquaboard or flat watercolor canvas, to name a few. All of these can be put under plexi glazing and matted and framed. These surfaces would fit in appropriately in a gallery with other work on illustration board or paper. The show would look uniform in presentation. This also allows and fosters the fun of experimenting with various surfaces. Since creativity and individuality are hallmarks of all artists, I think we must be forward looking and contemporary by accepting these other substrates!

Yupo has been allowed in previous exhibits and some of us have earned points towards our Signature membership with paintings on Yupo. Therefore, it should be grandfathered in along with traditional watercolor paper. The discussion should only be about allowing surfaces that have not in the past been acceptable surfaces. I have earned two points towards signature status, have paid my life time dues and intend on earning my last point with a painting on Yupo. I do not paint on traditional paper anymore. It would be unfair to stop allowing Yupo at this point as some have earned their signature memberships with paintings on Yupo and this would invalidate their accomplishments. I would be forced into painting on traditional paper if I wanted to try for my last point for signature membership. This I would not do, thus ending my participation in any FWS exhibits. I think two choices of all surfaces or just traditional paper are bad ones since you are grouping Yupo with surfaces that have not been allowed in the past. Please re-visit this decision.

Although I am for complete and total freedom of expression in the creation of art by using whatever materials an artist desires, I feel that utilizing traditional watercolor pigment on rag paper is an art form that remains in a class by itself.

By maintaining the use of traditional watercolor pigments applied to rag paper for Florida Watercolor Society exhibitions and shows reveals the ability of the artist to produce what I feel is a true watercolor work of art. Otherwise, shouldn’t the title be the ‘Florida Art Society,’ the ‘Florida Painting Society’ or the ‘Florida Experimental Painting Society?’ I’ve seen some watercolor shows (not necessarily the FL WC Society shows) where the artist has used collage with fabric and other materials, acrylic, and other mixtures of medium. My goal is not to downplay the magnificence of these works of art but I feel that they do not fit in with what are classified as ‘watercolors.’

I use all media in my art but consider pure watercolor on rag paper, using water only, should become the standard in the Florida Watercolor Society. There is plenty of room for experimentation with the application of watercolor pigments on rag papers.

I'm really enjoying discovering the news forums etc. on the FWS site, and just thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth on the "resurfacing" issue. I see lots of votes for expanding the options for painting surface media, mostly because artists do not want their freedom of expression constrained. There are no constraints on an artist's freedom of expression save those which are self imposed. There is no law that says watercolor artists must be limited to just watercolor shows and the limitations of entry into those shows. I've seen this same old argument from countless artists, few if any are willing to really push their medium beyond such show limitations and enter their work in shows for all media and all disciplines where there are no such rules at all. As AWS so aptly states, you have to draw the line somewhere, and stick to it. Anything that doesn't fit the guidelines for a watercolor show, has countless opportunities to be shown in all media competitions. Personally I think more watercolorists should take part in all media shows, we have gotten a bit segregated from the rest of the art world - to our disadvantage.

As for debating the relative merits of such substrates like Yupo, Claybord, & Watercolor canvas, do your own homework on its suitability. Most of what artists read about these products is nothing more than marketing. I remember the stir when Claybord came on the market. So few people realized that this was just white scratchboard with a marketing campaign. Same with watercolor canvas. Anyone who has an Artists Materials Handbook would have known for decades that just adding extra whiting to regular gesso would produce the same thing. Ask yourself if these products really enhance your work or if it makes it one more gimmick.

Also, it's an artist's responsibility to do one's own research on the physical suitability of these products. I have a sample piece of Yupo from the first year it came on the market. Since it didn't work for my painting style, it just sat around my studio. Now it has turned noticeably dull yellow and a bit brittle. I do not smoke and my studio is in my house - normal conditions. I found that Yupo is just a think film of PVC plastic, just like lawn furniture. If you leave Claybord or any of it's competitors in a bright windowsill for a couple of months, guess what happens. The acidity migrates & reacts with light just like newsprint. I left paper clips on top of a piece of Claybord and later I could see the clear outline of it on the board after moving it. Not to mention that excess moisture accelerates this and will also swell/weaken the composition board if it gets over the edges.

In short, do your own research and make your own decisions without input from someone trying to sell you something.

Rather than make a fuss about bending rules for our shows, enter shows that encourage any media.

I believe that the Florida Watercolor Society should accept entries for shows that are painted on any surface, including watercolor paper, watercolor/illustration board, yupo and other choices as selected by the artist.

I was going to join the Transparent Watercolor Society this year because they alone seem to want to press forward with showing the beauty of watercolor painting on paper. I'm not against yupo or watercolor canvas or ampersand boards. I just like paper the best. The crisp beauty of a 22 x 30 inch piece of 100% rag mouldmade paper is so seductive and lovely. Then you make lovely jewel like marks with a sable brush and it is so satisfying.

I read, with interest, Richard's defense of the anything goes "mixed media" style of painting. I love Bill James' images on gessoed paper or board - he's an amazing artist - and have friends who have painted with gesso, casein. pencils, crayons and all sorts of other bits of things to make their paintings go where they wanted them to go. All these things are being marketed to us by the Arts Supplies catalogs and the art magazines. For me though it's those tubes and cakes of transparent paint that make me want to paint.

I was lured to watercolor by seeing Andrew Wyeth's Helga paintings at the Norton in Boca Raton. I stood in front of these amazing images in watercolor on paper and I was converted. I cried. For me it's paper baby all the way all the time.

Then I discovered Charles Reid's paintings and was able to study with him. Pretty much sealed the deal for me. All I need to make art is a beautiful sheet of paper, a brush, a jar of water and some cakes of paint. I carry my paints with me everywhere. All the time. I paint in little sketchbooks during church service or when I'm sitting in the car waiting on someone. I think and solve in watercolor. I don't need all the other stuff.

I think the issue is deeper though than what media or surface is being touted as the best to use. Watercolor has always been very unique in its look and it's the oldest method of painting. In a way it has always been an experimental medium. Watercolor paints were used on cave walls where men mixed pigments with water or animal urine to make the paint. For hundreds of years this kind of paint was applied to plaster walls and ceilings. It predates the use of oils, gums and resins mixed with pigments which became oil painting. Egg tempera is pigments bound with egg yokes and water instead of gum arabic and dextrin and water. A close cousin wouldn't you say? Take a watercolor paint and add a bit of titanium white (chinese white) and you have "bodycolor." or gouache. The Victorians made astonishing paintings with this method of painting.

I think the issue is what makes you a watercolor painter. If you need more than the essentials to feel like you are expressing yourself then maybe watercolor is not your chosen medium. If it takes gesso, pencils, inks, iridescent metals, canvases, boards, acrylics, acrylic mediums, casein paints and yupo to get you to paint then maybe you aren't really a watercolor painter? Just a thought.

I am more in agreement with the traditional use of watercolor obviously. It's what drew me to watercolor in the first place and why I continue to explore with my simple tools. I've made paint using clay dirt mixed with honey and water and applied to paper. I've also used crushed tea bags and crushed leaves. It was fun in a crafty kind of way but it doesn't compare with my brush making marks on paper using my paints.

I think this current discussion runs deep. I am totally in love with watercolor – and to be real honest – hated to see it go to acrylics. I am sure many disagree, it is just that there are many venues for acrylics and oils, but not very many any more that protect real watercolors. I think that originally watercolor societies arose as a voice for watercolors because they were not seen as “permanent or serious” – and I truly believe that watercolor may be on the verge of losing its voice. Possibly this disagreement arose because artists felt that so many other “watermedia” products and surfaces were becoming the majority of exhibitions. I talked to many people on this subject and they felt this pretty strongly. I don’t think anyone really noticed in the beginning that acrylics were so prevalent in the watercolor societies; but now it is very noticeable and I think many artists feel they must “draw a line in the sand” to stop it from becoming overwhelmed with mixed media, etc. – hence the mention of “surfaces. In fact, I find it strange that I have seen rules for Acrylic shows that say “NO WATERCOLOR” – hummmmmm......

Steve and I have exhibited in art festivals for years and always had to enter in a “category” – either oil & acrylic (painting) or watercolor – so that kept me focused on exploring watercolor – for which I am grateful!! (not saying I didn’t have an urge once in a while!) We could not show “acrylics” in a “watercolor” category. Perhaps having different “categories” in the annual show may be an answer! – Acrylic Category – Multi-surface Category – Watercolor Category!

Like I said, I am in love with watercolor – I love to watch it move, color into color – shape into shape –its unique qualities entertain me to no end – but I don’t want to stop someone else from another medium – I just want to preserve the wonderful world of watercolor!!

I am not sure what is best and I do not want to inhibit anyone’s creativity – I guess that after painting 25 years in transparent watercolor (on paper) – I still have not come to the end of exploration and it excites me every moment – as it has a total life of its own – it reveals never-ending surprises and visual delights! To me, it is like breathing – I can’t imagine life without watercolor. So you see, I would be sad to see it “watered down” to “insignificant”! I am not sure that I really care what surface it is on – I just have never finished exploring with paper yet, so can’t relate. The feel of a brush loaded with pure pigment & water - hitting the paper surface and watching it move and do its’ “thing” is indescribable!

I do think that other artists that feel this same passion for watercolor are deeply afraid that this will no longer be a real “watercolor society”. Some previous watercolor societies are already changing from “watercolor” to “watermedia” – I see it also in shows, etc., etc.

It would be a shame to loose the identity of watercolor, and to miss the opportunity to keep exploring this amazing medium. Other media are all wonderful also and I am sure artists working in them are finding that same thrill of “never-ending joy”! (I worked for years in other media but never found the excitement as I did with watercolor as it is so challenging and so completely different than any other media).

At least, I hope that Florida Watercolor will require artists to state what the surface is on their entry and the medium. (i.e. transparent watercolor on rag paper; watercolor with gauche on rag paper; or acrylics, etc on rag paper, yupo or canvas) I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE STATED NEXT TO THE PAINTINGS AS IT IS IN EVERY MUSUEM!!!! It is very educational both to other artists as well as the public.

Again, I have no argument about surfaces and all kinds of media (I have worked in all of them) I just think we need to think about what we want to be as a society – watercolor or watermedia or mixed media, or just a painting society? I do feel that I have to give a “voice” to watercolor.

I do want to say I love the Florida Watercolor Society and everyone in it!!! (no matter the “discussion”...or outcome) It is truly a gift to meet and share our joy of painting in watercolor!! I will always be grateful for opportunities and for all the many hours of service that “volunteers” have served. Thank you! Thank you!

I would like to add some comments to the online forum regarding watercolor supports:

I think that the whole discussion of whether non-traditional supports for watercolor painting are acceptable for FWS exhibitions might be missing a very important point. Let's consider the reason for the establishment of "Watercolor" societies from the beginning. Read the mission statements for so many of these societies, especially if you go back a few years. Primarily they state that the society was established, and continues to exist, for the purpose of promoting the art of WATERCOLOR painting, and to enlighten the public on its intrinsic value as an art medium. Why was it necessary to create "Watercolor Societies" to begin with? Primarily because the public, galleries, and museum curators regarded Watercolor as an impermanent, and therefore inferior, painting medium, that should be used for sketches and studies (in preparation for "real" paintings done later in a more permanent medium). The big issue at the heart of it all is that artists who wanted, and still want, to sell their Watercolor paintings could not, and still cannot, command the same prices as one would for an acrylic or oil painting. Watercolor was not, and still is not, considered to be a "serious" painting medium. Therefore, the same need still exists to promote the value of Watercolor as a serious painting medium to the public, galleries, curators, etc. How good of a job have we done in promoting Watercolor? Are we done yet? I don't think so!

When one goes to a Watercolor exhibition, one expects to see paintings executed in Watercolor. Not acrylic, nor tempera, etc. I would suggest that if the manufacturer's label states "Watercolor" then, well, it is Watercolor. If it says "acrylic," "water-soluble oils," "crayon," "pastel," "colored pencil," etc, well, then it is not Watercolor. These other mediums have gradually crept into Watercolor society shows when the prospectus stated that it was acceptable as long as the primary, or dominant, medium was watercolor. Then, it morphed again when the words "in an aqueous manner" crept into the prospectus, further opening the door to "water down" our definition of Watercolor. Frankly, I think it discredits Watercolor societies to accept acrylic paintings as "Watercolor" or "Watermedia" when in many cases they are quite clearly NOT Watercolors. The public then becomes confused. Are we the Florida Watercolor Society, or the Florida Watermedia Society? What IS our message? What IS our mission? Have we lost sight of it?

The discussion regarding paper vs non-paper supports is really a separate issue. Museums and galleries, collectors and the public are still leary about the permanence, archival qualities and value of ANYTHING produced on paper. One cannot deny the fact that paper is very fragile and can be impermanent under some environmental conditions. It is a big reason why Watercolor paintings on paper still command much lower prices, even though linen canvases are not immune to environmental degradation. I could paint the identical image twice: One in Watercolor on Paper, and the other an Acrylic (in an "aqueous manner," of course!) on Canvas. The latter will sell for 3 or 4 times the price of the former. It will be considered to be a more permanent, more "serious," and a more valuable work of art. So what do we do to change the mind of the public?

1) We, as a Society, continue to promote the value of WATERCOLOR as a valid medium, and

2) We, as artists, continue to strive to find more archival supports for our wonderful WATERCOLOR art.

As an artist, I have created art (and not just paintings) using a wide variety of mediums and methods. I am not limiting myself as an artist in any way. I continue to paint what I want, how I want, with whatever medium I want, on whatever support I want, and I enter my artwork into local, regional, state, national, and international shows. Some of these are open "art shows," such as the Allied Artists of America, some of them are "watermedia shows," such as the Rocky Mountain National Watermedia Exhbition, and some of them are "Watercolor shows" of the strictest, most purist definition of Watercolor, such as the Transparent Watercolor Society. I participate in all of them, and the trick is that you just need to read the prospectus CAREFULLY and adhere to the rules of that particular show, and enter your artwork that fits their definitions and rules.

I, personally, don't have an issue with what painting supports are acceptable for entry into FWS shows. I do, however, have an issue with FWS losing sight of our mission of promoting WATERCOLOR. I believe we need to keep the definition of "Watercolor" simple, and not dilute it by allowing inclusion of media that is clearly not Watercolor. I would not support changing our mission statement, or changing our society name, from "Watercolor" to "Watermedia (just in case that question comes up)."

News Sections: