Last week I revealed the lightfast test sample of Alizarin Crimson paint. Look, I understand - people love Alizarin and recommend it all the time. Anyone who has ever bought a selection of paints based on the recommendations of trustworthy, though perhaps "old school" artists, has probably ended up with a tube of it. It's lovely, easy to work with, and constantly recommended.
I, with full disclosure, admit that it fills me with a tiny, but profound, amount of anger. It's responsible for the loss of several of my older paintings.
But, and this is important, it's probably still a good choice for sketchbooks and paintings that are designed to be reproduced. It's rather lovely, after all. What does a poor lightfast rating matter for paintings that aren't stored in the light?
But for artwork destined for a wall? Oh, there it is - that tiny little bit of anger. Over the next 10 weeks (give or take), I hope to show, play by play, the fading of PR83 when exposed to light. Exciting!
I realize that some people argue that media matters, and I can't help there. I just have watercolor tests going right now.
If you can't wait, Bruce MacEvoy of Handprint offers some of the best lightfast test results, ever. He has some punchy things to say about Alizarin:
The lightfastness of alizarin crimson ranges from very poor to marginal. By modern standards, the pigment consistently fails to meet the minimum lightfastness standards expected of professional watercolor paints. -- Bruce MacEvoy
Abigail, or AEE Miller, loves the following: art, Halloween, her family, learning, and so much more!