Comments on: Why Art Investors Should Avoid Watercolour Paintings

By: gresa

gresa — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:10:23 +0000

I like watercolours…
the transparent and soft pigment sort of evokes a sense of escapism, unlike baroque or romanticism, well it all depends on where you decide to place these paintings. But I am absolutely rubbish when it comes to watercolours and I really want to become better, if anything the price would be cheaper due to the amount of care required to make sure the painting doesn’t fade.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:16:20 +0000

well i can’t find john glovers pictures

By: Liz Rye

Liz Rye — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:35:07 +0000

There seems to be odd bits of numbers and letters on the portrait. Have you any further clues about the painting in any of these markings?

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:19:25 +0000

Re:1838 date. The painting purported to be an 1838 portrait of the Bronte sisters could not have been painted before the late 1840s or early 1850s. The women’s clothing/hair style dates to that period.

By: Tomas

Tomas — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:44:06 +0000

The paints differ between in cost yet the price of the palette says totally nothing about the value of the picture that reflects the light… People look at famous symbols, yet many remain deaf to the message beyond the picture – because they fall into the trap of discussions that lead them nowhere and blind them in their own reasonings, because the characteristics of the paints interest just a market, which goals are opposite to the light, that as enlightens our earthly path, as awakes the spirit of the beholder. Only that message from “beyond the picture” is worthy investments.
Thus Watercolor or Oil? Personally I prefer the dreaming over a cup of coffee to musing about the paints.

By: Val Spencer

Val Spencer — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:14:31 +0000

Water colour is a viable medium.
1.Good quality materials are readily available.
2.It is readily accepted that water colour is a difficult medium to handle, not an easy option.
3.At its best contemporary water colour can be exciting ,vibrant,sensitive and liberating
4.From an environmental point of view water colour paintings have less impact on our environment so in the long term may gain popularity from this angle.
6.We should encourage the buying public or investors (are these not the same people) to use their own judgement when buying art.
Incidentaly I am an artist. I paint in water colour acrylic and pastel.I make no differentiation between the priceing of my works but regularly sell more water colour and pastel than acrylic

By: 47whitebuffalo

47whitebuffalo — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:07:47 +0000

watercolor is a viable media

see http://www.dawnhawk.org

before denigrating it…

By: keithhornblower

keithhornblower — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:08:12 +0000

Liz

A most thorough and intelligent analysis. I am a watercolourist for my sins and can assure all that it is not the easy option; a constant source of frustration, my studio floor is often littered with failures. With watercolour, there is little or no opportunity to paint over mistakes, unlike the opaque media. Every brush stroke remains for all to see.

Longevity is not a problem as long as the best quality materials are used. The paper is anything but fragile. “Paper” is a bit of a misnomer as the best stuff is made from linen rag, ph neutral and therefore resistant to browning (the effect of acid in wood pulp in cheap papers) and incredibly durable.

And the point that most of you have missed is that the pigments in watercolour are exactly the same as those used in oil paints, the only difference being the binders used. They are no more prone to fading than oils. The only difference is that oil goes yellow with time…

In conclusion, I fear the perceived difference in value between watercolours and oils is purely down to long held prejudices and the common perception that watercolour is the medium for amateurs. The longevity argument doesn’t wash – fortunes have been spent on dead birds, used sanitary towels and bus tickets in the name of art.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I’m going back to my painting set. Five bob in Netto’s.

By: Liz Hager

Liz Hager — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:04:02 +0000

Nick
Engaging discussion, and I’m not even a watercolorist.

Nevertheless, I would not advocate against collecting watercolors on the basis of any of the points you make in your original post.

First, there is an active and ongoing knowledgeable collecting public for all works on paper. The points you’ve made about fading, fragile paper, and preparatory (i.e. lesser) works apply equally to drawings, pastels, and even serials (prints) as they do to watercolors. However, while we’re at it, let’s not forget that the brilliant crimson of the Rothko oils at Harvard University faded to pink within a decade. And the newly-invented iodine scarlet pigment (suspended in oil) Turner used in his 1839 painting of the Fighting Téméraire (at the Tate) started out as a flaming red and within a few years had faded to a dull iron-brown. The history of painting, even contemporary art, is littered with failed media experiments.

The collecting public for works of art discounts for condition, regardless of the medium, and obviously no one wants to be stuck with a work that has lost its “luster.” Care is required for all works of art, and paper can an incredibly long time mounted on acid free board and framed behind UV glass. We still have Leonardo drawings executed nearly 500 years ago and illuminated manuscripts (even older) because people knew how to take care of them. . .

Thus, I’m not sure advising people not to collect simply on the basis of the fragility of the substrate or the ephemeral nature of the medium holds any water.

Further, despite most Ab-Ex’s eschewing watercolor, there is still a collecting public for the medium and lovely, if not sublime, examples to collect from all periods. Certainly the market for watercolors is a smaller one than the one for oils, but what really matters to most collectors (at least the ones I’ve spoken to) is, first, that they really covet and enjoy the piece and, second and less importantly, they have a reasonable expectation the work will appreciate. You may argue that oils appreciate on a whole more quickly; I don’t have any figures for that.

Additionally, I would observe that there are hoards of amateur oil painters (some quite good, some pretty dreadful), which hasn’t hurt that medium much.

And finally, we should recognize that watercolors are generally executed on a substrate smaller than works on canvas (whether oils or acrylics). Some of their lower pricing reflects this. The fair thing to do when comparing prices is to take roughly similar sizes of works by the same artist and note the differential.

I appreciate you throwing this topic out there, clearly it’s sparked a lot of people to contemplate WHY.

Best Liz Hager
http://venetianred.net/

By: James (Gorin von Grozny)

James (Gorin von Grozny) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:31:11 +0000

Hi Nick,

Some fascinating comments re w/c values/durability, right on all sides I reckon!
When I went to collect an 1820′s portrait of 6th duchess Bedford’s three daughters (believed by Landseer, scandalised father of youngest) from a local (Devon, England) auction house it had ‘dissapeared’, I accepted a very different trio of females in substitute, an impossibly rare group portrait of the Bronte sisters. In immaculate preservation apart from brittle edges and loss of white body h/light, and of incredibly infinite detail, (8mm eyebrow/5mm lashes constructed of single hairs) the lower retro carries instructions: ‘DO NOT use cleaning liquid. Haip Glazed.’ Would love to send image if I knew how! Bears monogram E.L. (Landseer) and indistinct date 1838. Bronte Attribution agreed by experts, but do not know what ‘haip glaze’ is, though it works. Can you help?
Best wishes to you an all, James, Debbmzhire.