Adding color to old oil painting

Freda Framer

Grumbler
Joined
Sep 3, 2001
Posts
44
Loc
Cleveland, Ohio
This is probably my strangest request yet from a customer:

Can an oil painting (13 yrs. old) be painted over successfully? We don't typically do restoration work---this is a request for changing the color of specific areas in the original painting (you guessed it---to match their decor!).

I am assuming that its original varnish would need to be removed first. Then perhaps using a glazing medium called Liquin could be used to lay transparent washes over the original colors in an effort to alter them.

I know this one is "long shot" and I apologize for asking such a question that is out of the realm of normal for the framing industry---but perhaps there is someone out there who has dealt with this before.

Any help would be appreciated,
Freda
 
Freda,

That whole deal sounds like nothing but a passle of trouble to me! Unless you personally know the artist and have their permission (which I doubt they'd ever give), I wouldn't change a single brush stroke on that painting for the best customer on my database!

That original artwork is copyrighted by the artist and you nor anyone else has the right to arbitrarily change the image to match somebody's interior, couch, or dogpen!

I think that this may be an example of where the owner of a piece of purchased art does NOT have the right to ask someone else to modify the art for them. It's your business and your neck in the noose if that artist gets testy about you modifying their art original.

Personally, I would send that customer to the artist and let them work out the details.

Framerguy
 
I agree with Framerguy unless it happen to be one of those mass produced original oils intended for decorator purposes in the first place.
 
Framerguy's post is worth heeding. No amount of
money could compensate you for the problems that
this is likely to entail. Using modified oil
additives may also lead to problems, since at
13, the painting is still drying and modified oil
may end up drying at a more rapid rate than the
underlayers, with an unhappy result. Perhaps the
frame can mediate between the painting and the
decor.

Hugh
 
Funny you should mention this, Freda. I just framed a canvas transfer of one of Monet's field-of-poppies paintings on which the customer had carefully overpainted every single one of the poppies purple to match her couch.

And I managed to keep a straight face the whole time we were discussing frame options.

But an original? I don't have the talent, the tools or the chutzpah to attempt it.

Kit
 
Thank----I needed that! Everyone's answer confirms my suspicions----I think I must have been tired and overwhelmed that day, when I agreed to look into it.

As always you have been wonderful in helping me come to my senses!!!!!

Gratefully,
Freda
 
I think the artist may be able to press charges with a signifant suit in your direction. I would not do this. Someone has got to know what the deal on this one???
d
 
Freda,

What did your customer have to say about changing that oil to match her drapes?? couch?? whatever she wanted to match in her house??

I thought about this delemna and have come to this conclusion; even if that painting was a scene of the most execrable image imagineable, to bedaub it with any changes, or to as much as adumbrate it with the slightest shading or overpainting at all, would be, in my opinion, an infringement of the artist's visionary interpretation of what he saw and how he expressed this interpretation on canvas.

In other words, an artist has as much right to depict his visions of his world in any manner he see fit and that depiction is considered as original as any other artistic creation in its original form. To alter his vision would be to plagerize an original concept to suit another person's view of that image. It would be akin to rewriting the "Old Man and the Sea" to suit a woman's point of view of fishing by changing the role of the fisherman, the variety of fish he caught, and changing the entire scenario to the location of a lake.

I would suggest that your customer would be much better off and feel more comfortable with a new canvas that matched her concept of her interior decor. And you would be alot safer knowing that, whomever that artist happened to be, there would not be a knock on your door some day asking questions that would be embarassing to answer.

FGII
 
Tom, I know it goes without saying but I am compelled here to take a moment and tell you that you are a "Freakin Genius". :eek:

Sorry for the break in the conversation......
 
So, let me see if I have this right. An artist paints a painting. A customer pays the artist cold, hard cash for that painting. But the artist can still dictate what the customer does to that painting? Somehow, that doesn't seem right. Of course, it goes without saying that purchasing an original does not give you the right to duplicate the painting in any way. But altering it should be up to the owner.

Let's say that I purchase a one of a kind jacket from a textiles artist. Does that mean that I can't cut the sleeves off of it if I want to? Of course not. I paid for it and I can do what I want with it. That doesn't mean that I have the right to duplicate the jacket and sell it. But, again, I paid for an original and can do what I want to with it. How is painted art any different?

Isn't the problem not so much in whether or not to change the artist's vision but more so the fear of defacing something that one day may have great value? The overpainted Picasso? The "touched-up" Andy Warhol? If the customer is fully informed of the ramifications of the embellishment and still wants the painting altered then I would do it. There are a gazillion paintings out there that will never be worth any more than the canvas they were painted on. Do some research on the artist so that you are as informed as possible then get a letter of consent or waiver and do what the customer wants. Who are we to tell people what they can and can not do to their own personal property?

Any lawyers out there, I'm sure you can either confirm my position or set me straight on the legalities of this.

Cyndi
 
Cyndi,

Isn't this a great forum???

Where else can you get your opinion stated and be proud that your feelings are known to others than yourself?

We all try to do the best we can with the knowledge we possess and that is all we can do, in the end.

Most of the "Old Masters" were simply unknown artists when they painted all these pricless masterpieces we so cherish today. They painted to pay the rent or to get a basket of potatoes or a new coat. Who would have ever imagined in the "old days" that all of this stuff would be the foundation of what we know as Art in our modern society?

And who will be the next Picasso or Rembrandt of the 21st or 22 century? Maybe that guy who painted the canvas that didn't match somebody's couch, eh?

Just doing some verbalizing on the possibilities of what may be.

FGII
 
framerguy good point. i think this person should just go out and buy a poster for her couch to match. the artist is the creator and therfor have a copyright on the image. therfor if you change the image you would be screwing with copyright laws.
cyndi this is one that laywers could answer better than i. from th info i have in my posession i can sue if anyone claims my work as their own or changes my work foe any reason. this is from two different sources that have lawyers who help artists.
d
 
Framerguy,

Consider me duly reprimanded for voicing my opinion.


dsn y,

If you want to be taken seriously then you should consider, at the very least, proof-reading your typing so that it is understandable.

To clarify - I never said that it was OK to change anyone's work and then try to pass it off as my own. Illegal and immoral. I also never said that anything should be done to works when it is known that they will be turned around and sold again.

I only tried to point out that a 13 year old painting is hardly likely to be by some undiscovered Rembrandt and that the customer should be advised of what any alterations may do to the potential future value of the painting and then let them decide.

My view and analysis of the question at hand was just my opinion. Sorry that I inflicted it on all of you who-know-more-than-anyone-else. But I guess that's what free speech is all about.

Cyndi
 
Cyndi,

It's okay to yell at FramerGuy. I do it all the time, though it rarely does any good. You will never encounter a more thick-headed Grumbler, but he is oddly pleasant in real life.

But it's a well-know fact that dns was born without a shift key or even a Caps Lock key. Usually we avoid mentioning his CCC.

Caps-challenged condition.
 
cyndi dear i did not mean to upset you. i was not saying that i know all...i am here to learn. sometimes i speak up with a bit of information i have. this information is also quite fuzzy, grey, or whatever you might say. how enforceable??? i don't have a clue.

i can also say there have been several artists that have based their careers on doing this. i know this is not what is going on here, but it is more information. a female photographer bought photographs from the national print librbay (someone correct me if that is the wrong place). the female artist then signer her name to all of these famous photos done by men. her thought was that art was the history of and for men. i stink with name, but i get the ideas...sometimes...sort-of...hardly.

and i am horrible at typing that is usually why my posts are short. it does not seem as obvious that you cant type if it is shot.

sorry did not mean to ruffle feathers.
d
 
Cyndi, If framerguy had been in reprimand mode, you would have been reading for about an hour. Actually I read it as an honest, isn't it nice.

I think most of us feel the same way you do about purchases but in past years certain states passed laws protecting artist rights and some even said you could not alter or destory an artist work. I know one person who was quite upset when his sister discarded an original work even though it had been done for her particular decor. It was still part of his body of work.

The grumble is basically a friendly bunch but our own moods as readers and writers often reflects how we interpret the chosen words.

Welcome to posting on the grumble.
 
<marquee>Kum by yah my Lord Kum by yah </Marquee>

<c>
saint.gif
</C>
 
Cyndi,

Jeanette (JPete) was right on the money about my post. (Of course, she somehow understands my cryptic dialect better than some!)

A "reprimand" was the last thing on my mind when I replied to you. I meant only to imply that the Grumble is a very open albiet sometimes misinterpreted forum where any framer can come and ask questions or state their opinion on most anything.

But, as with any opinion, you have to be prepared for some opposite viewpoints and some hardnosed attitudes. So, you just have to dig in and either ignore that which is against your position on a particular subject or come back with whatever you feel will clear up any confusion. And you will find that there are those whose opinion is very "opinionated"!

A good example is somebody who has not followed the trend of a thread jumping in and stating something completely derogatory or rude about someone else. That rarely happens with cause but sometimes you just have to throw a few punches to get your point across or give a reality check to some really obnoxious person who isn't doing anything other than to attempt to stir up trouble.

that definitely wasn't the case with my post. I apologize if you took the wrong meaning to what I attempted to explain. I meant nothing personal and I surely didn't mean to reprimand you for anything you said. If anything, I probably wanted you to think more openly about how a person in the art world becomes something special. Anyone can do this but the odds are that most artists will not be another Rembrandt.

But it is our not responsibility to judge who will and who will not reach that pinnacle. It isn't even possible for any of us to forsee that possibility. So, as a group charged with handling original art and placing it in some sort of environment that will safely display it and preserve it for the duration of its life, we need to be as objective as possible and give some benefit of the doubt when confronted with a request such as was presented to Freda. She doesn't know nor do I whether that artist will ever amount to anything so we have to assume that the remote possibility is there and act accordingly. And that becomes a professional judgement call that is individual and important to both the owner of the art and anyone else involved in its handling.

(This post has lasted almost an hour but that doesn't mean that it is a reprimand!! ;) )

Framerguy
 
yeahI can be dumb and be too much into the art stuff sometimes...that is my education speaking. I don't know how much of that is really correct. It has been published and passed down to me and I try to pass a few tiny things that I sort-of understand along on occassion to sound semi-smart. Guess it did not work. Or I presented in a way that was not unbiased and for that I apologize. Is that one of those double ontaundras(big time sp)? I have to spell it the way it sounds...how do you think I got d n s ynk o? What did I say about smart? I apologize for that also.

d n s ynk o
 
A very interesting topic!

As an artist who is also a framer, I've come across this many times over the years, both with my own artwork, and with others - where a customer wants to, either
a) "deface" a piece of art for some ridiculous reason, or
b) frame an original work in a manner which would offend me (and I don't offend that easily!)...

My response to either situation, TO THOSE WHO WERE ADAMANT, has always been the same (even in our high-rent, store front shop):

"If you're going to do this, please take it elsewhere and do me the courtesy of never mentioning it again."

I know that, from a business point of view, there are probably far better ways of dealing with these situations. And so many of you far-wiser-than-I-grumblinos will rightfully disagree...

However, I subscribe to the "man (and woman) does not live by bread alone" philosophy. In other words, it feels good to send some people packing. ;)

Thanks all, for your thoughtful responses to this dilemma.
 
LOL,

I had a customer who used to bring in Kincrap calendars and VERY carefully painted over the symbol(?) in the middle of the ummm.. painting. I would just smile, take her money and frame them. Did I turn her in to the art police? NO.

I never tell anyone this, but: it's not my job man!

-David-

Btw,
Would I have painted over these pics? HECK YES with a roller and black paint! lol lol lol lol.......
 
Nobody answered the first question.

Yes, and oil painting 13 years old can be painted over, retouched, modified, etc... Certain techniques may be more successful that others, but it can safely be done.

Use the same technology that conservators use to isolate the pigments being added, so, if in the future it is deemed necessary to remove those pigments to uncover the original it can be done safely.

I think it is important to establish the nature of the piece before getting all worked up over propriety. If the nature of the piece was to embellish decor, created for that purpose, purchased for that reason, and no longer serves that function, I see no harm in making changes to make it serviceable. I see it all the time on pieces created for the designer market and modified before framing to better accompany the environment where it will live. I don't do it, I'm not qualified.

What will be collectible in 2103? Who knows, but if it is unaltered production painting from Taiwan or Mexico, I'm goona be so happy I didn't live to see it. I can see it on the Antique Roadshow:" Well, what you have here is a genuine production factory painting from the late 20th century. As you know, most of these were destroyed by spontaneous combustion in the 2040's and few remain. One in original condition would be worth oh, 2.5 million euro, but since yours was modified you might as well use it to line the bird cage."

Lets find out what we are talking about before we make summary judgement.
 
I suggest that nothing be done to the painting until it has been cleaned. You may wish to do it yourself in one corner using water and a mild detergent with a soft sponge. If some brightness appears, suggest to your client that the painting be professionally cleaned and forget the color enhancing. Cleaning it yourself may be risky if the paint has cracked and moisture can seep below the oil. Use your own judgement as to risk; I am certain that this suggestion will be not widely accepted.

Jack Cee
 
Framerguy - Clarification accepted. Although I could probably go one on one with you in the debate department I decided not to for fear of you having to make more clarifications. I did have a beautiful argument all typed and ready to go including comparisons of the population of "Masters" vs world population in three different periods in history. The end analysis was that in the world today of 6.3 Billion people there are statistically less that 150 people that potentially would become the "Masters" of tomorrow. (Well, Ok I shared a bit of it
.)

Neither here nor there. Jack and Wally are right - you should find out what you've got before getting all worked up over possible value. Maybe a good cleaning is all it needs. If the painting is only 13 years old chances are that the artist is still around. Find out what you can about him/her. Check the internet to see if they have any gallery showings, etc. Then inform the customer of the pros and cons.

FYI - I don't know about how all oil classes are taught but when I took a painting class varnishing the finished product was never mentioned. Granted this was not a class taught in a Higher Learning Institution, but there are a lot of those type of classes out there. Which means that there are probably a lot of unvarnished oils out there too. Just something more to think about.

Respectfully submitted
,

Cyndi
 
Water is really not the way to go for an oil painting. (A small inconspicious spot , for testing only, maybe??) There are special cleaners for that.

As far as I understand the, the law protects artwork from alteration. In plain terms, the piece is always owned by the artist, even when purchased by someone else. The purchaser has the physical ownership, but not the concept, and how it was created. Altering violates that protection.

Just wanted to let you know what I have come to understand about this topic. In fact I had read quite abit about this a few years back. Had a friend whose artwork was purchased, and the picture ended up on coffee mugs and T-shirts. Artist Magazine also writes a legal column in each edition.

[ 10-27-2003, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: lyoncat ]
 
I don't know that we'll ever get to the bottom of this to everyone's satisfaction but I'll put in my last two cents on the subject.

Owning an original in NO WAY entitles the owner to duplicate that art in any way, shape or form. Yes, the rights to that image belong to the artist for all eternity. But again, if I choose to do something to the original (albeit unadvised) whose to say that I can't change something that I own? I can not alter it and turn around and sell it as the original that it was, I can not sign it and claim it as my own, nor can I duplicate it in any way.

But if I choose to "enhance" it or even burn it who is going to stop me? The art police? I'm not saying that I make a habit of burning art or defacing it. All I'm saying is informed consent and customer satisfaction.

Smile folks, I'm going back to lurking for a while
.

Cyndi
 
I have a mass produced painting that I paid $15 for at a yardsale... thought it would look good in my living room color wise. nope, I'm about to put some paint on it. I'm not an artist by any stretch but I'll risk $15 It may end up looking like a 6 year old did it and I throw it away. I found this thread looking for advice on HOW to do it LOL ... I didn't read every entry since it seemed to all be ditected toward IF you shuld do it or not. If I'm breave enough I'll show you a before and after photo... :) Thanks
 
So, let me see if I have this right. An artist paints a painting. A customer pays the artist cold, hard cash for that painting. But the artist can still dictate what the customer does to that painting? Somehow, that doesn't seem right. Of course, it goes without saying that purchasing an original does not give you the right to duplicate the painting in any way. But altering it should be up to the owner.

Let's say that I purchase a one of a kind jacket from a textiles artist. Does that mean that I can't cut the sleeves off of it if I want to? Of course not. I paid for it and I can do what I want with it. That doesn't mean that I have the right to duplicate the jacket and sell it. But, again, I paid for an original and can do what I want to with it. How is painted art any different?

Isn't the problem not so much in whether or not to change the artist's vision but more so the fear of defacing something that one day may have great value? The overpainted Picasso? The "touched-up" Andy Warhol? If the customer is fully informed of the ramifications of the embellishment and still wants the painting altered then I would do it. There are a gazillion paintings out there that will never be worth any more than the canvas they were painted on. Do some research on the artist so that you are as informed as possible then get a letter of consent or waiver and do what the customer wants. Who are we to tell people what they can and can not do to their own personal property?

Any lawyers out there, I'm sure you can either confirm my position or set me straight on the legalities of this.

Cyndi
The owner has no right to change the painting so no professional should assist with that request. Info from the link below: "The term "moral rights" is a translation of the French term "droitmoral," and refers not to "morals" as advocated by the religious right, but rather to the ability of authors to control the eventual fate of their works. An author is said to have the "moral right" to control her work. The concept of moral rights thus relies on the connection between an author and her creation. Moral rights protect the personal and reputational, rather than purely monetary, value of a work to its creator." https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html Moral Rights Basics
 
Back
Top