Oh, Must We Call Them Paintings?
I’m on my soapbox today. Soft pastel is a dry medium, and I use it to draw pretty pictures. I don’t think the fact that they resemble something that’s been painted makes them paintings. In fact, there’s no paint in them whatsoever. What is in them, is the purest form of pigment available to the artist. It’s the same pigment used in artist grade oils, acrylics, and watercolors, but in a less adulterated form.
So why are works rendered in soft pastel referred to as paintings? From what I’ve been able to determine is that if the support is completely covered (and it looks like a painting), it’s a painting. A piece that leaves a lot of paper exposed is a drawing. Oh, good grief…
As an artist, I think it should be quite acceptable to celebrate my medium of choice by NOT calling them paintings. It’s not paint, it’s pastel! From a consumer’s point of view ( and I’ve been one of those a lot longer than I’ve been an artist) I feel it’s short selling the work before it’s even begun.
The average consumer is familiar with oils and acrylics. So is the average art gallery. I don’t think the majority of either are fully educated as to the benefits of soft pastel as a fine art medium. We artists don’t help this matter by referring to our soft pastel pieces as paintings. So why not just say it’s a pastel?
I’m proud that my work is rendered in soft pastel. I chose to work with this medium because of it’s light reflective qualities, the incredible purity of the pigments, and it’s archivability. I think calling a pastel a painting diminishes the true value of this exquisite medium. I don’t paint- I pastel!
Climbing off the soapbox now, before every pastellist on Earth starts throwing things at me… unless they’re throwing soft pastels. I’ll run and fetch my pastel box.
No Comments
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
