then a painter i admire wrote me about problems *she* was having with arches sheets, problems she took to the manufacturer and to which Arches responded in a generous manner. but one off gestures to repair the relationship with the artist do not get at the underlying problems with the paper.
case in point: the 29" x 41" figure nude of sienna, which i had to abandon because of inexplicable blotching across her ... well, across the part of the image that i could not disguise with texture, pattern, dark values or strong color contrasts.i know how to store and handle papers; i wash my hands before handling papers, and i do not bruise or abrade papers accidentally or on purpose. these blotches get darker grossly darker when the paper is wet, implying the flaw is in the pulp.
the companion painting disclosed a different flaw -- a small cluster or spray of white dots, each about 1mm in diameter, covering an irregular, elongated area about 6 cm/sq. these dots, whatever they are, repel paint and cannot be worn down or lifted by judicious scraping with an xacto knife. they appear in a mid valued area where i can probably disguise them with texture.
i am a habitual user of Arches watercolor blocks, both the 300gsm and 600gsm sheets, and in general the 300gsm (140 lb.) blocks have a rock solid consistency. i recently purchased some 20 year old 300gsm blocks from an artist who wanted to offload her inventory, and the quality of the 300gsm sheets 20 years ago and today is indistinguishable.
in contrast, the 600gsm block sheets seem a little erratic to me; the surface in particular seems less finished and more unpredictable. so i have a conjecture: all the 600gsm weight papers are made in a separate line or at a separate manufactory, under separate or subsidiary management from the higher volume plants. if so, someone from Arches corporate (well, Arjo Wiggins or whoever owns them now) should drive out to that plant and do a quality and process review. something unhappy is happening to arches papers.
19 comments:
I agree, something is happening to Arches paper. I've had problems with a layer of the paper lifting when I removed masking fluid - something that's never happened to me before with this paper.
Too bad, a little higher and you could have covered it with a tramp stamp.
I've never had problems with paper that I can recall. I buy rolls of Arches or Fabriano, whatever's on sale. I know David Burge has had lots of problems such as you describe with Blue Lake - an otherwise wonderful paper - and has all but sworn it off.
Hi Brucie - Glad to hear you're going public with this Arches issue. Friend of mine had the same problem (sample 1) four years ago on her fresh new paper. I rarely use Arches, but do have 20 year old 140# sheets. They feel so solid. I admire your color mixes, and thanks so much for sharing.
Ida
Hello,
Bruce I love this blog and all your big work in handprint.com
Best regards
Pierre alias masmoulin
hi bruce.
yes.. i have had problem w arches. i continue to have problems.... using up my supply. the pulp seems more pithy/papery than before.. and lifts off when you scrub or scratch. it's almost like the paper is 'too soft'.!
have you heard from arches? i'd be curious as to what they say.
carol
Hello Bruce,
We arrived to the same conclusion with some of my artists friends. I heard that the firm Canson owns Arches now.
If each disappointed artist writes to Arches, I hope the company will try to "rethink" its paper ...
Best regards,
Catherine (Belgium)
As Nick said, I suffer my man at Blue Lake and still support him, I get 20 sheets a year of home grown paper, it has unique qualities, especially for portraiture.
The difference between Maurice at BL and Arches is that he's a one man band and been the maker of some magnificent stuff, and as it goes some absolute rubbish. I think the original product has disappeared beneath the layers of adjustments. Maybe no more blotches but a very different paper which doesn't have the poetry of the old circa 2002 version which was a real hand made product.
One would not expect a problem with the big 3 european manufacters though.
I recently started using some of the sheets from a block of Arches 140 lb hot press. It wasn't until I held one up to the light near the window that I saw that it had the texture of linen or some other fairly fine fabric. I thought I had held up the underside but, no, same thing on both sides. Usually the hot press is beautifully smooth. I compared it to the paper from a previous block purchased about the same time (a couple years earlier) and the difference was obvious.
I know you'll shudder, but I'm going back to using Cartiera Magnani hot press, which is so smooth it's like working on bristol without the fragility. Wonderful stuff for the kind of work I do, and substantially lower cost than Arches.
My recent experience with arches 140# caused me to tear my painting off the board it was stapled to in a rage! And I do not anger easily. I had been working on the painting for 6 weeks.....close to completed. I surmise a sizing issue in one section. I have been using Arches for 30 years and never experienced anything like this.
So the next issue was a brand new unopened 140# block.....shrink wrapped, completely new. There were what I guess to be roller marks across the sheet. Which did disappear after stretching.....the next sheet same marks. But how did it get by "quality control"????????
How do you contact Canson to complain? I still have several sheets of 300# from 5 years ago before Canson took over. Never ever never had this problem with Arches......
These are all interesting comments, from so many years ago, but I have something to add. I began to notice problems with Arches a couple of years ago. Working wet in wet resulted in splotchy areas. The paint didn't flow on the paper as before. I heard the same thing from other painters I know.
At first I thought it was me, and then I blamed the Daniel Smith paints I was using. I never thought it would be the paper.
Then, last year the Plein Air convention, a representative of Arches (Canson) told me that they think they have the problem with the sizing solved. This was an unprovoked comment. Out of the blue. This explained my problem with Arches.
I switched to Saunders Waterford and have mostly have been quite pleased. However, I have 25+ sheets of Arches. It has been suggested that I stretch them and wash the sizing out with water. I may try that.
It's frustrating because I have used Arches for over 25 years and never had a problem before this.
I'm glad I found this post. Thought I was going crazy! I recently started painting again and I'm poor now so of course I used my 20 year old arches hot press, and I've had two projects ruined by the same blotching effect. There is ZERO lift available and yes it pills along the edges of either painter's tape or frisket...
Does anything know if the new stuff is behaving or if another brand of hot press is better? I'm too poor to be wasting money!
In the case of this image it adds character, it strongly resembles a tantalizing (because of the placement of the hands and her being face towards the other person in the image) birth mark. I understand your frustrations though.
I've used arches for illustration and gallery work since the 70's. Now it shreds and gums up if I scrub and area.
Thanks for this blog! I've been on chat with Dick Blick. 50% WIP on 20 illos for a book due next month and I've noticed all along the paper is shredding and gumming up when I scrub an area. Told Dick Blick they need to do something. Going to email Canson. This was a great paper that I used for decades.
My students and I have been using arches for years and have noticed the deterioration in quality...many of the above mentioned issues. Also, new blocks are coming apart at the gummed sides. And prices semi to be going up. I plan to discuss this with Blicks, hoping they might have more influence. In the meantime, does anyone have suggestions for a comparable #140 or #300 cold press.
I've enjoyed Arches for 25 years, more for the process than the outcome as I am totally self taught. It flowed in such a lovely way I found it good for my mental health regardless of my lack of expertise. Recently, it has the opposite, very depressing effect as it bleeds into areas I have left dry and spider veins away from my line. That and its gone up from $13 for the large 300lb cold press i loved to over $18. Awful. Someone please tell me what I can get that is better
Nope, not getting better. I am a professional artist and o was teaching a workshop online. I’m so angry right now. I’ve complained to Arches and now on to Dick Blick.
I have been searching for a replacement for Arches cold press several months, and while I have a couple brands that will do for some purposes, I have yet to find anything comparable to the "old" Arches. I use Lanaquarelle cold press most of the time, and I'm trying out Fluid 100 cold press, New York Central cold press, and also Twinrocker. They will serve some purposes, but are rather fragile when using masking fluid, and still don't have quite the beautiful "flow" and "bloom" that Arches had, while still holding a hard edge when needed. Artistico Fabriano hot press is another I can rely on for many uses. It's in the sizing, I'm told, that synthetic sizing is the problem. Traditional animal product sizing is now being replaced by synthetic sizing by many manufacturers and it has negatively impacted the quality of the paper.
I'm so glad it is not only me, on one hand, and very disappointed that others are seeing the same decline in such a great brand. So far the only paper I have found that is comparable is Baohong Artist paper which has now become my "go to" for most of my work. The CP is a bit more textured, but was easy to adjust to. I have switched to Hahnemuhle Collections for anything that I know will require a lot of lifting. Between the two papers, I will survive without Arches. It is sad to have to let go of a product I have been using for decades.
Post a Comment