JUROR…CARRIE BURNS-BROWN,NWS,carrie is from greenville, s.c.. she is an experimental water media artist and national juror. she is also a noted instructor, having amassed 40 years of teaching experience throughout theunited states and Canada.
2ND WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR…KATHLEEN CONOVER, NWS
ATTENTION!! IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!
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.
#1.Only 100% rag paper (yupo is not paper and therefore unacceptable )
OR
#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
Unsigned letters will not be posted.
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.
SURFACE-ing AGAIN! by Richard French, FWS and Past President
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.
WE SHOULD TOO.
An Opinion by Steve Rogers AWS, NWS
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.
