How should "watercolor" and "watermedia" paintings be defined in contest rules? Some society members want to stick with traditional definitions, while others want to expand the creative options about paints and surfaces. Voice your opinion about an issue dividing the members of many watercolor organizations.


During the most recent convention of the Florida Watercolor Society, a majority of those attending the members' business meeting objected to the board of directors' decision to allow people to enter paintings in the society's annual exhibition that were created on non-traditional surfaces like Yupo synthetic paper and watercolor canvas. Read comments by the president of the society, the 2007 judge, and a prominent member; and then add your remarks. Help the FWS membership decide what they should do next.

An Overview by Sue Reynolds, President of the Florida Watercolor Society

There are a lot of issues to ponder about the definition of “watercolor,” and, by implication, the surfaces acceptable for entries to future Florida Watercolor Society annual exhibitions. The definition in our current bylaws was adopted by the FWS board last year and reads, "Watercolor painting is defined as painting in water-soluble media on a watermedia surface and framed under suitable glazing material." This was vetoed by the members present at the annual September 30, 2007, meeting.

The 2007 prospectus further clarified this definition to include Claybord and flat watercolor canvas, but the paintings must be framed and under Plexiglas. The board of directors felt these were substrates a lot of artists might want to use, and as long as the finished paintings were framed and under Plexiglas (in other words, no deep canvas or unframed works), they would be acceptable and appropriate for a watercolor exhibition.

The former definition used by FWS since 1993, reads, "Watercolor painting is defined as painting in water-soluble media on paper, sheet, or paper mounted boards, and framed under suitable glazing material.” So, the FWS plans to survey its membership of almost 1,200 people to determine which definition to apply in the future.

It’s worth noting that the current definition of watercolor used by the largest national watercolor societies in the United States is broad enough to include a variety of paints. For example, the American Watercolor Society uses a definition that includes transparent watercolor, acrylic, casein, gouache, and egg tempera on paper. The National Watercolor Society (NWS) uses the term “aquamedia” to include those same paints if they are applied to paper and remain unvarnished. The NWS specifically excludes the use of encaustic or oils. It seems the definition adopted by FWS’s board of directors in 2007 was more in keeping with these two "mother " societies.

I think it will be interesting to glean information from our membership as to where they wish to go with this issue. Creative options are expanded when new products are introduced. For example, before 1780, artists had to buy raw pigments from an apothecary and then grind, wash, and mix them with gum arabic. Winsor & Newton developed moist tube color about 1870, and new paints were introduced with more brilliance and permanence, such as the cadmiums, cobalts, phthalocyanines, viridian, French ultramarine, and ceruleans. Now watercolorists can apply pigment as thinly or thickly as they wish in order to achieve either neutral or brilliant results. How backward it would have been to refuse these advances in materials!

So perhaps the use of various new grounds such as Claybord and flat canvas may be a good thing, and something watercolor artists want. Many of our prominent artists use such materials as Tiger Rag, Yupo, watercolor inks, and metallic and interference paints. At the same time, many artists have no desire to depart from traditional materials, and interestingly, the top award winner in the 2007 annual exhibition was a watercolor on paper. In fact, 10 of the 21 awards were given to watercolor paintings, not those in acrylic or other watermedia.

I think this upcoming survey will be excellent for us all. Whatever the direction, I am sure the FWS board will be happy to see the outcome and know that they will put in place what the membership desires.


An Opinion by Steve Rogers, AWS, NWS

The American Watercolor Society (AWS) 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 state, “Obviously, this was intended as a way of combating the feeling of many artists, as well as non-artists, who viewed watercolor only 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 Oil Painters of America (OPA), the Pastel Society of America (PSA), and the National Society of Painters in Casein and Acrylic (NSPCA) to name a few. These are comparatively new, and I assume they were established to provide artist members with the same kind of support and camaraderie that the watercolor 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 the respective mediums surely in response to what they perceived was the changing direction in the use of oil or pastel toward pure abstraction; and they made no bones about this in their statements of purpose or in how they defined what constitutes an acceptable painting in their exhibitions.

As watercolor societies extend the definition of watercolor to include more and more alternative media, basically anything that is water-soluble and not oil paint, as well as opening up their exhibitions to alternative supports, such as Yupo (an opaque plastic sheet, self-described as synthetic paper), Claybord, watercolor canvas, and 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 society exhibitions 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 exhibitions to those done in “traditional soft pastel only,” thereby excluding other forms of pastel. And as to the OPA, we all know that oil and water don’t mix, at least until recently. The organization limits submissions to oil paint, and 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 others to do so, because we’re not inclusive enough. If someone wants to paint oil, pastel, casein, acrylic, egg tempera, or use pencil, 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.

At the moment there are a few different definitions for watercolor. One definition is all-inclusive, or “anything goes.” On the other end of the spectrum is the Transparent Watercolor Society of America, which states in its prospectus that it will accept into its exhibitions only “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 are “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 1,000 members and clearly provides a venue for that legitimate point of view. Most of my paintings would pass their very careful scrutiny; however, John Singer Sargent’s watercolors would not.

Personally I would define watercolor as anything that Sargent 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 regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it.” In defining watercolor, this idea would translate to simply say that if it looks like a watercolor, then it is a watercolor. The American Watercolor Society definition on the 2008 prospectus reads: “The Annual Exhibition is open to all artists working in water soluble media (watercolor, acrylic, casein, gouache and egg tempera) on paper. No collage, pastels, class work, copies, digital images or prints; original work only”. The National Watercolor Society definition in its bylaws 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.”

According to Janet Walsh, the president of AWS, and Chris Van Winkle, the president of NWS, both of these “mother societies” accept, de facto, paintings on Yupo in spite of their respective definitions. Other synthetic surfaces such as watercolor canvas that could not be construed as paper are excluded. Contrast this with the statement made by Loa Sprung, the former president of the NWS: "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 50 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. It’s 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. In fact, Legion Paper, the USA distributor of Yupo, will not attest to its permanence and instructs artists painting in watercolor to spray their 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 difficult it is to establish a middle-ground definition of watercolor. I know that the rank-and-file membership of the Florida Watercolor Society is extremely unhappy about the interpretation of our current definition of watercolor and the repeated attempts to extend this even further. The comments I heard over and over again about the current exhibition are “this show does not even look like a watercolor show,” or “there is way too much impasto and heavy acrylic,” and “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.” While the choice of juror/judge is an important issue, it is a separate issue. Someone in that position only has slides and paintings that reflect the guidelines of the society. Let’s return to a more traditional definition of watercolor and give our next FWS juror a group of slides that reflect it.


What Is the Medium?
by Donna Watson

When I juried the 2007 FWS exhibition, I did not try to identify the medium of the works I considered--whether transparent watercolor, opaque, or mixed, it’s all fine with me. When I jury any exhibition, I am looking for something extra, something more than a typical, traditional rendering of a boat, palm trees, or flowers. I am looking for something unique and personal, along with good composition and good technique. I think my award choices reflected this, and because I was not concerned with the medium used, the overall quality of the show was more balanced, exciting, and interesting.

I noticed during the convention that many artists expressed concern about the definition of watercolor and the dilemma they face in using watermedia. That dilemma is that a watercolor painting’s lack of permanence (susceptibility to moisture, mold, dust, and fading) requires it be protected in some way, but the glass or Plexiglas often used produces troublesome glare and reflections. Adding to this problem is that more and more painters are being told that galleries no longer want works under glass. Hence, the concerns of watercolorists become “materials driven,” and they begin experimenting with alternative materials and surfaces. All this leads artists to debate the differences between traditional transparent watercolor and opaque aqueous media with white paint or collage. And of course everyone is concerned about the archival quality of the work. As long as I can remember—after some 15 years painting with transparent watercolor, then evolving into acrylic, collage, and assemblage for the past 12 years—this debated has existed.

To illustrate my point of view, I want to tell the story of a man, James Castle (1900-1977), who was born a deaf mute on a remote farm. He never went to school to be educated and could not communicate. There were no art stores, art classes, or workshops. He used spit, soot, and a stick for his drawings. He only had the backs of soup-can labels and greeting cards. He cut up milk cartons and cardboard and sewed them back together for his assemblages. He was driven to re-create his own inner vision of the world around him using whatever materials he could find. Today, his work is in museums and galleries around the world. Collectors are clamoring to buy his pieces and yet most of his work is under glass and is probably not archival. Perhaps these collectors are responding to the power and authenticity of Castle’s own personal inner vision--and it is enough.

I know this story will not solve the immediate practical concerns of your medium of choice. Remember that whatever medium you use is a choice. If you separate the word watercolor you end up with “water” plus “color,” which would encompass all aqueous media.

I believe that there is a time on our painting journey, in the beginning, when media, materials, and framing are concerns. At that early stage, painters are trying to figure out the techniques, their strengths, and what suits their nature. There is a time in our journey when the medium of choice, the techniques, and subject matter are no longer so important. Hopefully, by then, painters will be more concerned about their personal content and unique style. The more personal and unique your work becomes, the more you will attract galleries, jurors, and collectors regardless of the medium, framing, and permanence of the work. And as you try to do this, just remember James Castle.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Administrator,

FWS was organized to promote watercolor and provide a place for exhibition and celebration.
As Steve pointed out there are many other societies that have been established to support other media. I also would like to invite people to look into International Society of Experimental Artist (ISEartists.org), which was established in the early ‘90s for artists
who were experimenting with inks and liquid acrylics. Also there is the Collage Artists of America (collageartists.org) for the artists that want to experiment with collage.

My opinion on this matter is that we (FWS) should keep our definition and interpretation of watercolor in line with AWS’s. We should not be so easily influenced by or catering to the trade show venders and new materials. This does not mean that we are stifling creativity. This does not mean that we are putting up a barrier to experimentation. This does not mean that we are preventing anyone from trying other mediums. This does not mean that we are stopping anyone from being themselves. Everyone needs to join a society that has goals parallel to their own objectives. If that artist’s goals change, then they may need to find an organization that will support their new vision.

FWS and AWS should not change to accommodate and support every new product or every individual’s desire to change their create direction. FWS has a large enough following and membership to stay with our original definition. And that definition is in line with AWS.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Administrator,

Considering the "bum rap" that galleries, critics, art historians, curators and collectors seem to give to Watercolor as a medium, it would seem to be a valid assumption that most "Watercolor Societies" in general came into existence because of, and based their mission statements upon, this very concern: For those artists who either chose to paint with Watercolor, or who passionately love the process of creating brilliant translucence with this medium, there needs to be a support system which validates their art, acknowledges them as credible artists, and remunerates them to the same extent that any valid artist should expect. Any artist who finds their creative urges thoroughly satisfied via the use of Watercolor should not be turned away by galleries or anyone else in the art consumer world simply because of the medium that they have used to create their works. I have experienced the terrible frustration of attempting to enlighten individuals (mentioned at the top of my response)who turn a deaf ear simply because they refuse to even consider Watercolor as valid. How ridiculous! It is for this very reason that Watercolor Societies dedicate themselves to "Enlightening the public, educating teachers and children, exposing and exhibiting Watercolor artwork in public places, museums and elsewhere, and promoting the art of Watercolor." Painters of Watercolors need all the help and support they can get, especially if one ever hopes to sustain oneself through one's (Watercolor) art!

I agree with Donna Watson's belief that an artist should use any medium to express their artistic urges. I also do paint using many mediums and objects, and find it very satisfying and freeing. However, I also love the incredible luminosity I achieve using transparent watercolor on bright white paper, and consider those works to be among my best, and most satisfying, works. Therefore, I consider them to be monetarily as valuable as anything else I create. The pigments I use are extremely permanent and I protect my art lovingly with archival framing materials.

Many Watercolor artists, when faced with the "economic reality" that many people mistakenly believe that Watercolors are not as worthy and valuable as other art created by oils or even acrylics, end up turning to those mediums out of economic necessity -- not necessarily out of a love for those mediums or any creative satisfaction that they might give them. Financial necessity, unfortunately, leads many Watercolor artists over to "the dark side" so to speak! This chain of events is very sad. Likewise, if many Watercolor societies are expanding their definition of "Watercolor" to include any aqueous medium, including acrylic, is this being done to somehow strengthen the validity of their exhibitions or to increase their membership? In either case it leads us to ask, "Then what is 'Watercolor?'" The first time that I visited a major "Watercolor" exhibition and saw how many acrylic paintings there were, I was frankly very confused and dismayed. I explained to a fellow visitor that "It seems that this is the way these shows are leaning towards." I wasn't pleased. I wondered, "So why do they call themselves a 'Watercolor Society?'" I did not understand the point, and frankly, I still don't.

As Steve Rogers so passionately pointed out at the FWS meeting, there are many opportunities -- and other types of art societies -- that offer the painter of acrylic chances to exhibit and gain recognition for their work. I am not sure why acrylics (especially those that are clearly not painted in "an aqueous matter") have been included to the extent that they are. I do not believe that "Watercolor" Societies should all merge into a new self-definition as "Watermedia" Societies. And I do not enjoy seeing paintings in our shows that could pass for impasto oil on canvas.

Obviously there are several basic questions here that need to be asked and answered:

1) What is the point of a "Watercolor" Society?

2) What is "Watercolor?"

My personal definition of Watercolor is, "If it looks like 'Watercolor' then it probably is!" Another definition is: "If the manufacturer calls it 'Watercolor' then it probably is!"

However, I might add that I do not consider myself to be a purist, and we probably need to come to some common ground -- a compromise. I would be willing to include in the definition of "Watercolor" the following mediums and supports, AS LONG AS IT IS PAINTED IN A CLEARLY AQUEOUS MANNER AND LOOKS LIKE WATERCOLOR:

Watercolor, Gouache, Acrylic, Liquid Acrylic, Inks, Watercolor Pencil & Crayon all of which could be painted on Paper, Board, Yupo, Canvas, WHATEVER as long as IT LOOKS LIKE WATERCOLOR!

Thanks for the opportunity to post my opinions.

Sincerely,
Jaimie Cordero, FWS, MWS
Pinecrest, FL

IF WE WANT TO PAINT WITH ANY THING ON ANY SURFACE, WHY NOT CALL IT MIXED MEDIA AND BE DONE WITH IT.

I am posting an article written by Laura Stewart of the Daytona Beach News Journal. This article addresses the Florida Watercolor Society's 36th Annual Exhibition currently held at the Museum of Arts and Sciences, Daytona Beach, Florida. Here is the article as written:

Watercolor society offers show – Friday, October 19, 2007
By Laura Stewart
Fine Arts Writer
Daytona Beach News Journal

(Painting “Chios Caiques” by Steve Rogers of Ormond Beach is on display at the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Daytona Beach)

Daytona Beach – Nothing could be more exciting, or more refreshing than plunging into the wide-ranging new watercolor exhibit at the Museum of Arts and Sciences.
Crisp and pale against a rich, rusty background, the paper thin blossoms glow in Sheila Stilin’s “Bougainvillea,” and bright sunlight dapples Steve Rogers’ Beached Boat, “Chios Caiques.” Just as compelling, though very different in style and technique is “Metamorphosis,” Daphne Baruch’s darkly scribbled, scratched, scumbled near-abstraction.
By contrast, the complex whimsicality of Pat Joiner’s “Glass Painting 107” and the lyrical formalism of Sue Allen’s “Broken Wings and Other Things,” offer very different views of contemporary watercolor in Florida.
That’s just what you’d expect when members of the active-and very large-Florida Watercolor Society get together, and show their stuff. The show’s 102 pieces were selected by Donna Watson, the noted Washington state painter. Her exhibit features everything from traditional nature watercolors to water-media works as wildly experimental as the stunning “Metamorphosis and Jean Banas’ monumental “Boogie Woogie Nights.”
Between those extremes is a lot to like, and to respect. Deep radiant hues bleed into one another in Sue Reynolds’ “New Day”, a tone poem of blues and purples, salmons and pinks. For “Lunch at Lake Maggiore Italy, Susanna Spann chose a vase of white roses to express a visceral nostalgia, and painted them large, slightly tilted and extremely lovely.
Just as deft are the concept and brushwork in “The Countess,” Susan Hanssen’s surrealistic riff on the subject of nobility. She drew on the pomp of Baroque portraiture and the glorious gilded backdrops of medieval icons to aggrandize her subject, then added a face that evokes both nightmares and hilarity: serenely realistic goat, gracious in her gravitas.
And, in a punning not to both Matisse and Stendhal, Anne Kittel’s “Rough et Noir” presented her interior in tones of red, pink, black and white. It reveals a dangerous world: tabletops and floors are tipped and there is not depth or volume. The opposite of Matisse’s lush colorism, and a modern setting that would be uncomfortable for the characters of Stendhal’s “The Red and the Black, Kittel’s study is highly stylized and tightly, elegantly controlled. laura.stewart@news-jrnl.com

I think I might be replying to my own post by doing this but I was concerned that there were so few responses to this most important issue. I am directing my comments to members of the Florida Watercolor Society in particular but I realize this issue has ramifications beyond Florida.

The Artist Forum is a perfect venue to discuss the definition of watercolor. I know that watercolor artists feel strongly about how their respective societies define and interpret there own definitions. This is not a black and white issue as it involves both the type of surface that is being painted on as well as the media and the process of application. Basically what can be painted on, how it can be painted as well as, what can be used to paint it with. A forum affords people an opportunity to express their viewpoint without having to respond to anyone else's preformed questions which may contain some bias in the way they are framed or the scope to which they are restricted.

This is my first blog experience and I sense that would be contributors are put off in part by the registration process. It's really less daunting than it first appears. So I urge you to go through the process and state your point of view if you feel strongly about where we are going as a watercolors society.

Let's see if I can convince my wife Janet Rogers AWS to jump into the "blogisphere" and speak out about about the definition of watercolor. I know she has STRONG opinions about this issue. She has STRONG opinions about many issues, like whether the painting I just framed "really needs a little touch of red over here."

I find it interesting that watercolorists in this country cannot settle on the medium in which they work. Anyone that is interested can research the history of watercolor and its defining description as viewed throughout the world.

For example, from www.Wikipedia/Watercolor: “Watercolor painting ("watercolour" in British English and "aquarelle" in French) is a painting method. A watercolor is the medium or the resulting artwork, in which the paints are made of pigments suspended in a water-soluble vehicle. The traditional and most common support for watercolor paintings is paper; other supports include papyrus, bark papers, plastics, vellum or leather, fabric, wood, and canvas. In East Asia, watercolor painting with inks is referred to as brush painting or scroll painting. In Chinese and Japanese painting it has been the dominant medium, often in monochrome black or browns. India, Ethiopia and other countries also have long traditions. Fingerpainting with watercolor paints originated in China.

Although watercolor painting is extremely old, dating perhaps to the cave paintings of Paleolithic Europe, and has been used for manuscript illumination since at least Egyptian times but especially in the European Middle Ages, its continuous history as an art medium begins in the Renaissance. The German artist Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) who painted several fine botanical, wildlife and landscape watercolors is generally considered among the earliest exponents of the medium. An important school of watercolor painting in Germany was led by Hans Bol (1534-1593) as part of the Dürer Renaissance.”

If watercolor societies taut that watercolor is the oldest painting medium dating back to the caveman, must we not also acknowledge that it can be executed on surfaces other than paper? As Steve Rogers, AWS, NWS states in the article “The Controversy Continues Over Definition of ‘Watercolor’ (Watercolor: Winter 2008), The American Watercolor Society’s stated purpose is to “promote the art of watercolor painting in America.” Is that to promote the art of watercolor as it evolved in the United States or to promote the art of watercolor as it has evolved throughout the world?

To me it is quite simple. It is water based, thus “watercolor.” What is all of the controversy? I’ve not heard such a debate as to whether an oil painting is an oil painting, whatever the substrate. An oil painting is considered an oil when painted on cotton, linen, panel, metal, plastic, paper or any other surface. The binder and solvents in the paint seems to determine the fact that oil is described as oil. Should the same not be true for watercolor?

Why all of the controversy about watercolor? I find all the descriptions and controversy to be restrictive and diminishing to the medium. I have not found artists who paint in other media to be confused about the medium in which they work. How can we promote watercolor as a viable and respected medium that should be honored if we, the artists who choose to explore watercolor, cannot agree on what it is? Oil painters seem to clearly understand that they use oil paint and, thus, are oil painters. Pastel artists seem to understand that they work in pastels. Colored pencil artists seem to understand they work in colored pencil, graphite artists work in graphite. It is important to take notice that each of these media are described by the actual painting medium, not the substrate.

No one is being forced to paint in alternative water based media or on alternative substrates. Traditionalists can continue to paint aquarelle on paper when and if they choose. But must we restrict the whole community of watercolorists to paint the same? Will we next tell the painters they must only work representationally? Doesn’t that go against all that is creative? Great art has come from those such as the Impressionists who chose to work outside the boundaries of the acceptable and popular school of thought.

Regarding Donna Watson’s comments (Watercolor, Winter 2008): “…watercolor painting’s lack of permanence (susceptibility to moisture, mold, dust, and fading) requires it be protected in some way.” It my understanding that it is the gum arabic that has a tendency to mold, not the pigment. The same pigments when suspended in oil, pastel binders, polymer, etc. do not fade or mold. The paper is certainly susceptible to moisture, mold, dust etc. since it absorbs and releases moisture as does canvas coated with polymer based primers and paints. The paper, itself, cannot be easily cleaned or restored when damaged. Eliminate the paper and the artist eliminates many of the problems associated with watercolor. For centuries, paintings in other media, after being exposed to the pollutants in the air, have been cleaned and restored with great success. Again, why must watercolor be set apart as something less? It, too, can be presented out from under a glazing (glass or acrylic sheeting) when not painted on paper. It can be protected, cleaned and restored as any other medium might require.

Even in Watercolor (Winter 2008), there are feature articles and paintings by Sy Ellens, acrylic, Barbara Edwards, acrylic, and George James, watercolor on Yupo. These masterful artists are featured along with the beautiful works of Jeanne Dobie, Sally Cataldo, Stephanie Anderson, Milton Avery, Joyce Washor, Margaret M. Martin, and Steve Hanks, all of which have works described simply as watercolor rather than watercolor on paper. Obviously, the substrate is of no consequence.

If any watercolor society chooses to promote itself as a transparent watercolor society “on paper”, let this same society describe itself as The Watercolor Paper Society of X Place, and let the society continue to restrict its competitions and exhibitions to transparent watercolor on paper. There would certainly be nothing wrong with this.

I have worked in transparent watercolor for 50 years. (Even my early childhood works have not faded.) I was taught in a traditional school and taught to not use white paint. I use no acrylic, gouache, casein or collage. However, this is my choice and I do not choose to be critical of those who wish to work in a broader manner. Instead, I relish the inquisitive mind.

I consider myself a traditionalist and for 40 years I worked exclusively on paper. I am proud to be one of many watercolorists who seek to grow the medium into the 21st Century. I am proud that my work is presented in an archival manner and is housed in notable collections. I find galleries and collectors to be positive and receptive to the presentation of choice of my watercolors.

My own works are traditional aquarelle (transparent watercolor) executed primarily on Aquabord (Claybord Textured), an alternative surface and, occasionally, on 300# paper. My works have been shown internationally, are housed in corporate collections, private collections throughout the world and in museums in Europe and the United States. Moreover, my signature memberships include the invitational membership in the Birmingham Watercolor Society. Having just celebrated its Centennial, BWS heralds as one of the most notable watercolor societies in the world. It was with works executed in transparent watercolor on a non-traditional surface, Aquabord (Claybord Textured) that earned me the honor of being inducted into this prestigious organization.

When attending the Paperworld Fair in Frankfurt, Germany, in 2007, I found no resistance to non-traditional surfaces by watercolorists from outside the United States. Moreover, I found them to be excited and enthusiastic about the potential to develop the watercolor medium, an evolution that stalled in the 19th Century with the development of mold-made cotton lint paper, a process that allowed the masses to paint in watercolor like the Royalty and Upper Class.

I feel that such debates limit the growth of the medium, the respect watercolor deserves, and the perceived value by collectors. Traditional watercolor on paper will always exist and be honored for what it is. Museums will continue to collect and house exquisite works by prestigious watercolorists. No other medium has ever changed watercolor’s rightful place in the painting world. What is all the uproar about? What is everyone afraid of? We watercolorist will never give up the beauty of a soft, transitional wash that has flowed across the soft, sensuous surface of a cotton paper. But there is so much more. Options and change can be good. If not, we would still be painting on silk and mulberry, the early surfaces for watercolor.

Bravo to the Florida Watercolor Society, the Watercolor Art Society – Houston, The Oregon Watercolor Society, The Georgia Watercolor Society, The Pikes Peak Watercolor Society and others that support the creative spirit and diversity of its members

I wonder if Georgia O'Keeffe would have worked so hard to perfect her skills if she could have used acrylic ten years into her study and still be acknowledged as a "watercolorist." What about John Pike? Millard Sheets? People all over the world work in their little private lives, playing by the rules that have long been established by the masters, with the hopes of someday being accepted as having reach some level of mastery of the medium, only to find that through politics and money in the form of corporate endorsements the rules have been changed to the extent that "watercolor" is now defined as anything that is not oil. "Watercolor" is quickly becoming the cesspool of art. If watercolor has become less popular with the public, the fact that nobody seems to know what it is anymore may have something to do with that. I've been studying watercolor for nearly 40 years now and I am appalled by most society shows. The societies themselves are damaging the reputation of watercolor by allowing people who can't adequately express themselves with watercolor to deface their paper with any number of other media and call it by the same name. This isn't a matter of changing with the times and improving on watercolor, it is a matter of using the term "watercolor" to sell more products. Anybody can paint in any way they want with anything they want, they just shouldn't be able to call it "watercolor." Transparent watercolor, in my opinion, can do things that other mediums cannot come close to. The challenge and accomplishment of executing a transparent watercolor should be fostered, not defined as archaic by those in charge of our societies.

I noticed mention in the article of possibly excluding certain people if other mediums were not included under the umbrella of "watercolor." If they are not within the accepted standards of the society, why should they be included? There are always people who want to push the envelope. Individual personalities and their status in society should not be considered when judging a show. I've noticed that since the flood gates have been opened, Judges are chosen based on their acceptance of the alternative media. If they are not using transparent watercolor, it is because they cannot use it to do what they are trying to achieve, ie., value ranges, color, control, etc. with the medium. They make the argument that they are new materials that help expand the medium. Anything that can be done in any other medium can be done with watercolor with enough knowledge, experience and desire. If they need new materials to accomplish the task they should not be Judging others who have a better handle on the medium. If they have to reach for the opaque coverups, how can they Judge those who don't, they've never climbed the mountain. I find it amazing that the societies constantly point out that the top awards went to watercolor artists. There seems to be a distinct separation there. They can look at a painting and tell if it is "watercolor." It is getting harder to find "watercolor" classes. "Watercolor" DVDs and videos, etc., because any seventh grader can pick up acrylic, put in a few years and work their way through the watercolor societies. It is comparing apples and oranges. What is disgusting is that so many people are reluctant to even discuss this issue because it is such a tight community and they'll never get into another show, or the classes will be full. Once your name is associated with the preservation of transparent watercolor, you are stepping on big toes, big endorsements and big money. Talk about a music mafia.

Wow! I don't know where to start. I am a self taught artist that due to some crazy idea I had, decided to teach myself to paint in Watercolor. Even though my dad was an oil painter, I chose what must be the most difficult medium. Perhaps that is why I chose it. I never do things the easy way, and I don't think that painters who wish to exhibit in Watercolor Societies should be allowed to go the "easy " way either. I do not accept acrylic as a watercolor medium, it does not act like watercolor, it does not look like watecolor and the artist does not have the same constraints or concerns. It is a shame, ann I think an insane reality that watercolors are not given the same repect as those artist that shoose other mediums. That is what the Watercolor Societies should be working towards, not watering down (no pun intended) the art of watercolor, but adding to it's exclusivity through education and marketing, taking the medium the art and science of Watercolor out from under the shadow of Oils and Arcylics and putting it where it belongs, at the head of the class!

To set the record straight - as I see it - on a few counts:

When used skillfully (particularly in a transparent manner), it is impossible to distinguish between an "acrylic watercolor" and a regular watercolor. I've used both, separately and in combination for a long time, and I can't tell the difference. I've tested other artists on this point, and they can't tell the difference. Period.

There is a long history of acrylic prejudice in the watercolor community (as well as oil) and most of it, from my experience, is based on close-mindedness and ignorance. There is the presumption that acrylic used as watercolor must necessarily embody the techniques and opaque appearance of acrylic used as oil. Simply not true. The issue of transparency is not a viable one in condeming arcylic; as we all know, there are people who use regular watercolor opaquely; likewise, there are people who paint in acrylic transparently.

The notion that the acrylic watercolorist enjoys some kind of unfair advantage because of its permanence (immobility when subjected to subsequent washes, glazes, etc) is absurd. That can indeed be a useful aspect of the paint, but for those who employ lifting/scrubbing techniques, it's a distinct disadvantage. Actually, it could be argued that acrylic watercolor is the more difficult medium to work in because it must go down right the first time. (I won't bother getting into other variables that further complicate this issue, ie., watercolor used with fixative, watercolor mixed with acrylic medium, liftable acrylic, etc)

However, I don't waste much time weighing these factors because in the end I believe any medium is as difficult as you want to make it. For example, there are things about watercolor that are more challenging than oil, and there are things about watercolor that are much easier than oil. It probably all evens out. The person who wants to be the best watercolorist is going to have to work just as hard, but not harder, I reckon, than the person who wants to be the best oil painter, printmaker, sculptor, violinist, or arm wrestler.

And in my opinion, it's this business of difficulty, heightened by a snobbish elitism, that has done as much as anything in alienating watercolor and its practitioners from the rest of the art world. The watercolor purists and traditionalists wear the medium on their sleeves like a war medal, it's almost embarrassing. (True, many oil painters engage in their own brand of elitism, and that attitude has contributed to watercolor's second-class status. Shame on them.) But I think there is another factor that I never see addressed with regard to watercolor's reputation, and that is the tendency of watercolorists to put the medium ahead of the work. It's a common trap, an understandable one, and I've been there myself. But to me it misses the point. I don't care about "watercolor paintings," I'm interested in paintings.

Speaking of 'missing the point" ... returning to the idea of a certain type of paint constituting an "unfair advantage" or "cheating".....how pathetically messed up is that thinking????? Do we even need to explain what's wrong there? An artist should use whatever they feel like using, and whatever best accomplishes their vision. I sometimes suspect that watercolorists who make noise about this are reacting out of fear and a sense of inadequacy. Perhaps they need a scapegoat for their own artistic limitations, and the (in this case) evil acrylic polymer vs. gum arabic is too handy to pass up.

I have no problem with the rules of organizations such as AWS and NWS, and recognize that those rules have evolved over the years in order to meet the needs and demands of watercolorists worldwide. Yes, I think inclusive is preferable to exclusive. The problem with "as long as IT LOOKS LIKE WATERCOLOR!" is that there is no clear consensus on what "looks like watercolor," and it would be a terrible thing to define it on looks alone. I saw a great painting not long ago that at first glance looked like pastel, and then I figued out it was watercolor. What a refreshing surprise! I would hate to see something like that barred from a watercolor show because it didn't look like someone's idea of proper watercolor. On the contrary, I welcome seeing new and different applications of the medium, and the idea of watercolor that doesn't look like watercolor is intriguing. I work transparently, but I don't believe that is the ultimate benchmark in defining the medium. For me, the one thing that inextricably sets watercolor apart from other mediums is not binders or chemicals, but the vehicle: WATER.

I'm confident I can do pretty much anything in watercolor that I can do in acrylic, and vice versa. That said, why would I bother with acrylic? As stated above, permanence....and cost, which is a consideration when working large scale. A 5ml tube of a certain famous brand of Burnt Umber watercolor costs about the same as a 4 oz. bottle of the brand I endorse in fluid acrylic. No contest. At any rate, I like both paints, consider the work I do with each as "watercolor," and use them separately or in combination depending on convenience, their one unique difference (permanence/liftability), or simply my mood.

If it's all about permanence, then I would think that acrylic would be a superior tool for you to use. Why would you want it mixed with something as inpermanent as watercolor? Why would you want to call it watercolor? Why wouldn't you want to avoid the "watercolor" societies and promote the "acrylic" societies? You can avoid those elitists who want to see the continued evolution of "watercolor" as a medium. This issue is about an art form that deserves the same not more or less, but equal recognition as an art form with oil, pastels, acrylic, pen and ink, or any other medium. If there is no difference in any way other than permanence, why use watercolor at all? What do you have to back up your claim of permanence?

quote:

If it's all about permanence, then I would think that acrylic would be a superior tool for you to use.

Often it is.

quote:

Why would you want it mixed with something as inpermanent (sic) as watercolor?

Sometimes I like to lift color.

quote:

Why would you want to call it watercolor?

Because the American Watercolor Society, National Watercolor Society, Royal Watercolour Society, etc consider it so. Good enough for me.

quote:

Why wouldn't you want to avoid the "watercolor" societies and promote the "acrylic" societies?

1) I'm a watercolorist, and 2) wouldn't feel comfortable among artists who primarily paint with an opaque, oil-like technique. (see above)

quote:

You can avoid those elitists who want to see the continued evolution of "watercolor" as a medium. This issue is about an art form that deserves the same not more or less, but equal recognition as an art form with oil, pastels, acrylic, pen and ink, or any other medium.

Sounds good to me.

quote:

If there is no difference in any way other than permanence, why use watercolor at all?

See above, answer #2.

quote:

What do you have to back up your claim of permanence?

Huh?

Plastic doesn't last forever. We are mixing apples and oranges with unknown long-term results. I can see how the public is getting the idea that watercolor isn't permanent when artists use that argument to make the medium easier. Your art work is beautiful. But to me, if it is mixed media, I wouldn't buy it. It is of less value because I can't admire the skill. It is too bad that watercolor societies accept this as watercolor because it isn't. Rules come and go but you can't change the medium. Watercolor will always be recognized as pigment that allows the interplay of the white of the paper, whether it is completely covered or not. This whole issue went from using a little opaque medium in a transparent way (ha ha, whose decides whether its transparent enough or even what transparent is?) to some watercolor shows that now have thick acrylic on unframed or massively framed canvas. It is a joke. It gives the wrong message to the public and beginning artists. As a purist, it certainly eliminates competition among watercolorists, because water goes down hill and it is no longer a measured accomplishment to get those darks and juxtapositions with pure transparent watercolor. As you say, if NWS and AMS (the top of your mountain) say its okay, its good enough for you. Y