The Pastel Regency

 Finger_PaintingJoanna here:

I have fond memories of my early attempts at the visual arts.  Fingerpainting appealed to the squidgy, primitive side of me.  My big box of crayolas was a regiment of reassuring order.  And then there were poster paints.  So bright.  So vivid. Purple houses.  Green — I mean GREEN — fields.  Red cats.

When I run out of red, I use blue.
     Pablo Picasso

But settling down to talk about history. 

A-drawing-lad_nicolas-bernard C18

He's using a brass pastel holder.

Regency visual artists were about half way along the technological journey between the Neolithic Cave painters and one of those high-tech computer painting programs.  The fine work, the beautiful work, the Regency artists created was accomplished with the most simple tools and a limited array of colors.
 
Let me talk about pastels, because one of my characters, Pax, uses pastels.  I think of it as a portable and democratic art form in Georgian and Regency times.

Portraits in these readymade crayons offered tangible advantages over oil for the artist and the sitter: they required fewer sittings as there was no drying time; less paraphernalia; the materials were easily portable and the costs were lower.
      The Rise of Pastel in the Eighteenth Century, Margery Shelley

Pastelportraits ack the met

Just a whole bunch of pastels.  From the Met

They called pastels 'crayons' in the Regency — so confusing — because the waxy colored sticks we think of as 'crayons' wouldn't be invented for another century. 

These pastels were made by grinding natural white chalk — something you can pick up off the ground in places like Southeast England — into a fine powder. You mixed this with pigment and a binder like gum arabic.  You rolled the mixture into thin cylindrical sticks or long square sticks and dried them.  These were 'soft pastels'.  They were just super concentrated colors that transferred readily to the paper. 

A-drawing-lad_nicolas-bernard C18 detail

detail picture above

You had a potential for vivid color, but in a medium likely to crumble and come apart in your hand and smear.  So the pastel sticks were fitted into a sort of metal holder that protected them and provided control and precision for the artist. 

Conte crayon holder antique

A holder for conte pastels, about 6 inches long, brass

 

 

 

 Because pastels were intended to be inserted into a holder, they were thinner than the ones we use today.  A square shape gave them stability in the holder. 

ETA: I've not yet found an illustration of someone drawing with plain naked pastels, but it's very possible this is how it was actually done.  It's the way pastels are used today, so why not in 1800?

 

 

 

 

The first pencil, or rather crayon, that I possessed, was given to me by that right worthy cronie of my uncle Zachary, William Hogarth. It was one of those which may be still remembered by 'men of my standing'.  One end was of common commercial black-lead, the other red-chalk, ready pointed, and inclosed in a case of need.
     Literary Gazette and Journal, V 4, John Mounteney Jephson, 1820

Conté_crayons wiki

conte pastels and a holder.

 The most exciting recent innovation for our Regency pastel artist would have been the Conté crayon,  invented in France in 1794.  These were made from kaolin clay and graphite and fired in a kiln.  They were much harder than the chalk-based soft pastel sticks, and came in a smaller range of colors.  They could be sharpened.  They were good for tight, crisp lines and fine detail, and often used to lay down the first sketch on paper. 

Our Regency artist dealt with the fragility of those pastels by 'fixing' the finished art with dissolved Isinglass.  Isinglass, as you doubtless know — doesn't everybody? — is made from the dried bladders of fishes.  This was dissolved in alcohol and distributed in a fine spray of droplets over the paper. 

Which brings us to a consideration of color …

Constable's 1837 Tin box bladders white stone glass vial pwdered pigment

John Constable's oil paints, 1837

Oil paint came in only a few colors.  Oils were a couple decades from living in metal tubes.  In the Regency, they came in bladders that had to be pierced for each painting session.  They dried up quickly and had to be used fast, so artists didn't keep a wide range of colors handy about the atelier.  They mixed what they needed from ten or a dozen basics.

This to the left is Constable's paint box with its paint bladders.  About twelve of them. 

W reeves 1784 to 1789 paint box  from whimsies one time permissiontn

A nice 1794 paintbox with about a dozen blocks of paint and a couple of conte pastels

 

 

 

 Watercolor came in more shades. 

Regency watercolors looked surprisingly modern — little squares or oblongs with about the texture of today's watercolor, stamped with the maker's name.  The binder contained honey to give a softer, gummy texture. 

Since colors could be mixed as needed on a ceramic palette, even a very fancy watercolor box held a dozen or twenty colors.  Ackermann — yes the same Ackermann who made prints and produced Ackermann's repository — offered 68 prepared color choices in 1801.

(So many of these watercolors were so very poisonous.  I'm sure there's a good Regency mystery here somewhere.)

Pastels, on the other hand, came in myriad shades.  In the Regency these were available commercially and had been for a century.

As those students who attempt the art of crayon-painting may be readily supplied by the shops with every kind of crayon, we shall not enter into the manner of their preparation
     Pantologia: A New Cyclopaedia, John Mason Good, 1813

These dozens of prepared colors were not just convenience, but a necessity arising from the way the medium worked.  Pastels could be 'smudged' on the paper to create a blended hue or added in layers for subtle shading, but the artist had to start with a wide selection of excellent colors.

No great success in this mode of Painting can be expected, unless you have procured Crayons of brilliant tints, that are tender, corresponding with those in Nature.
     A Treatise on the Art of Painting, and the Composition of Colours, ‪M. Constant de Massoul‬. 1797

What startles and amazes is how few pigments they had. 

This is the palette they worked with, mostly from ground, natural stones:

Selection of Minerals

natural minerals used as pigments attrib Michael Price 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bitumen
List of colors
Lead white
Ivory black
Naples yellow
Indian yellow
Prussian Blue
Yellow ochre
Red ochre
Vermilion
Rose madder
Carmine
Burnt sienna
Brown madder
Bitumen
Cassel earth
Ultramarine blue

 

From this — everything.
All the art.  All the pastels and oil paintings and watercolors.   
I am so amazed.

Paint box with oils:  John Constable (English, 1776–1837), Paint Box, 1837. Tin box with
hinged lid housing eleven bladders, tied with string and filled with
pigment, a piece of white stone, and a glass vial of powdered pigment, 2
x 13 x 3 3/8 in. (5.1 x 33 x 8.6 cm). Sterling and Francine Clark Art
Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (photo by Michael Agee)

 

If you were a Regency artist, what medium would you have chosen?  What would you have painted?

Some fortunate person from the comment stream will win one of Joanna's books — their choice.

140 thoughts on “The Pastel Regency”

  1. I think I would have chosen the oils to paint with. It just seems to me to be more of a permanant way to color and form color combinations.

    Reply
  2. I think I would have chosen the oils to paint with. It just seems to me to be more of a permanant way to color and form color combinations.

    Reply
  3. I think I would have chosen the oils to paint with. It just seems to me to be more of a permanant way to color and form color combinations.

    Reply
  4. I think I would have chosen the oils to paint with. It just seems to me to be more of a permanant way to color and form color combinations.

    Reply
  5. I think I would have chosen the oils to paint with. It just seems to me to be more of a permanant way to color and form color combinations.

    Reply
  6. I am no artist! But given the information you’ve set out here, I think I would have used either watercolours or pastels, depending on the effect I wanted to achieve and where I was painting. Pastels certainly sound more convenient for carrying around and being able to start work with a minimum of preparation.
    I suppose one would only own a couple of brass holders? Perhaps one for the most frequently used colour and another? This would have meant constantly put crayons in and taking them out, which would presumably weaken them. So did amateur artists own one for each colour, or were they too expensive for that?

    Reply
  7. I am no artist! But given the information you’ve set out here, I think I would have used either watercolours or pastels, depending on the effect I wanted to achieve and where I was painting. Pastels certainly sound more convenient for carrying around and being able to start work with a minimum of preparation.
    I suppose one would only own a couple of brass holders? Perhaps one for the most frequently used colour and another? This would have meant constantly put crayons in and taking them out, which would presumably weaken them. So did amateur artists own one for each colour, or were they too expensive for that?

    Reply
  8. I am no artist! But given the information you’ve set out here, I think I would have used either watercolours or pastels, depending on the effect I wanted to achieve and where I was painting. Pastels certainly sound more convenient for carrying around and being able to start work with a minimum of preparation.
    I suppose one would only own a couple of brass holders? Perhaps one for the most frequently used colour and another? This would have meant constantly put crayons in and taking them out, which would presumably weaken them. So did amateur artists own one for each colour, or were they too expensive for that?

    Reply
  9. I am no artist! But given the information you’ve set out here, I think I would have used either watercolours or pastels, depending on the effect I wanted to achieve and where I was painting. Pastels certainly sound more convenient for carrying around and being able to start work with a minimum of preparation.
    I suppose one would only own a couple of brass holders? Perhaps one for the most frequently used colour and another? This would have meant constantly put crayons in and taking them out, which would presumably weaken them. So did amateur artists own one for each colour, or were they too expensive for that?

    Reply
  10. I am no artist! But given the information you’ve set out here, I think I would have used either watercolours or pastels, depending on the effect I wanted to achieve and where I was painting. Pastels certainly sound more convenient for carrying around and being able to start work with a minimum of preparation.
    I suppose one would only own a couple of brass holders? Perhaps one for the most frequently used colour and another? This would have meant constantly put crayons in and taking them out, which would presumably weaken them. So did amateur artists own one for each colour, or were they too expensive for that?

    Reply
  11. Let’s see, oil paints are really very messy. I would doubtless ruin my clothes if I tried them, so probably better not.
    Water colors are neater. I could sit in the shade wearing my sprig muslin and new bonnet and toss off a sketch of the nearby ruin, complete with (imaginary) thunderclouds.
    Or I could do pastels of adorable rosy-cheeked children so that admiring swains could comment on my tender heart.
    But knowing me, I would probably take my conte crayons in hand and make satiric caricatures of all those who irritated me.

    Reply
  12. Let’s see, oil paints are really very messy. I would doubtless ruin my clothes if I tried them, so probably better not.
    Water colors are neater. I could sit in the shade wearing my sprig muslin and new bonnet and toss off a sketch of the nearby ruin, complete with (imaginary) thunderclouds.
    Or I could do pastels of adorable rosy-cheeked children so that admiring swains could comment on my tender heart.
    But knowing me, I would probably take my conte crayons in hand and make satiric caricatures of all those who irritated me.

    Reply
  13. Let’s see, oil paints are really very messy. I would doubtless ruin my clothes if I tried them, so probably better not.
    Water colors are neater. I could sit in the shade wearing my sprig muslin and new bonnet and toss off a sketch of the nearby ruin, complete with (imaginary) thunderclouds.
    Or I could do pastels of adorable rosy-cheeked children so that admiring swains could comment on my tender heart.
    But knowing me, I would probably take my conte crayons in hand and make satiric caricatures of all those who irritated me.

    Reply
  14. Let’s see, oil paints are really very messy. I would doubtless ruin my clothes if I tried them, so probably better not.
    Water colors are neater. I could sit in the shade wearing my sprig muslin and new bonnet and toss off a sketch of the nearby ruin, complete with (imaginary) thunderclouds.
    Or I could do pastels of adorable rosy-cheeked children so that admiring swains could comment on my tender heart.
    But knowing me, I would probably take my conte crayons in hand and make satiric caricatures of all those who irritated me.

    Reply
  15. Let’s see, oil paints are really very messy. I would doubtless ruin my clothes if I tried them, so probably better not.
    Water colors are neater. I could sit in the shade wearing my sprig muslin and new bonnet and toss off a sketch of the nearby ruin, complete with (imaginary) thunderclouds.
    Or I could do pastels of adorable rosy-cheeked children so that admiring swains could comment on my tender heart.
    But knowing me, I would probably take my conte crayons in hand and make satiric caricatures of all those who irritated me.

    Reply
  16. Hi Lil —
    I like the satiric cartoons idea. I really do. I think the bonnet is absolutely necessary in this endeavor.

    Reply
  17. Hi Lil —
    I like the satiric cartoons idea. I really do. I think the bonnet is absolutely necessary in this endeavor.

    Reply
  18. Hi Lil —
    I like the satiric cartoons idea. I really do. I think the bonnet is absolutely necessary in this endeavor.

    Reply
  19. Hi Lil —
    I like the satiric cartoons idea. I really do. I think the bonnet is absolutely necessary in this endeavor.

    Reply
  20. Hi Lil —
    I like the satiric cartoons idea. I really do. I think the bonnet is absolutely necessary in this endeavor.

    Reply
  21. Hi Betty –
    Y’know artists spent a lot of time worrying about the durability of their work. Folks painted for the ages — and until modern times, the pigments didn’t last for ages. Some of them changed color. The whites were notorious for doing that.
    It was a problem for all media, oils, pastels and watercolors.

    Reply
  22. Hi Betty –
    Y’know artists spent a lot of time worrying about the durability of their work. Folks painted for the ages — and until modern times, the pigments didn’t last for ages. Some of them changed color. The whites were notorious for doing that.
    It was a problem for all media, oils, pastels and watercolors.

    Reply
  23. Hi Betty –
    Y’know artists spent a lot of time worrying about the durability of their work. Folks painted for the ages — and until modern times, the pigments didn’t last for ages. Some of them changed color. The whites were notorious for doing that.
    It was a problem for all media, oils, pastels and watercolors.

    Reply
  24. Hi Betty –
    Y’know artists spent a lot of time worrying about the durability of their work. Folks painted for the ages — and until modern times, the pigments didn’t last for ages. Some of them changed color. The whites were notorious for doing that.
    It was a problem for all media, oils, pastels and watercolors.

    Reply
  25. Hi Betty –
    Y’know artists spent a lot of time worrying about the durability of their work. Folks painted for the ages — and until modern times, the pigments didn’t last for ages. Some of them changed color. The whites were notorious for doing that.
    It was a problem for all media, oils, pastels and watercolors.

    Reply
  26. Hi HJ —
    What a good question.
    I don’t know how the ‘changing color’ thing was done. As you see from the example (I have other paintings of pastel artists holding these) the brass or silver or bamboo holders certainly seem solidly wedged with the chalk.
    What a fuss and fiddle to change them.
    I have explicit directions for making pastels in this period that talk about rolling the soft finished product down to a very small radius before drying. These narrow sticks would be delicate to hold, and there would be no reason for such thin pastels if they weren’t intended for a holder.
    But the directions I’ve seen for actually working with pastels seem to indicate they were held in the hand. Lookit here:
    “When he (the student) wants a point to touch a small part with, he may break off a little of his Crayon against the box, which will produce a corner sit to work with in the minutest parts.”
    Which sounds like he simply has the crayon in hand, doesn’t it?
    My guess — the artist might have used the holder for a white and a charcoal. Maybe there’d be the quick, practiced removal and insertion of different colored pastels in for some sections of work.
    But maybe the commercial pastels were fairly robust sticks simply held in the hand. Perhaps they were wrapped with cloth or paper to keep smears and unwanted transfer down to a minimum. I mean, that’s the way pastel artists work today, so why not in 1800?

    Reply
  27. Hi HJ —
    What a good question.
    I don’t know how the ‘changing color’ thing was done. As you see from the example (I have other paintings of pastel artists holding these) the brass or silver or bamboo holders certainly seem solidly wedged with the chalk.
    What a fuss and fiddle to change them.
    I have explicit directions for making pastels in this period that talk about rolling the soft finished product down to a very small radius before drying. These narrow sticks would be delicate to hold, and there would be no reason for such thin pastels if they weren’t intended for a holder.
    But the directions I’ve seen for actually working with pastels seem to indicate they were held in the hand. Lookit here:
    “When he (the student) wants a point to touch a small part with, he may break off a little of his Crayon against the box, which will produce a corner sit to work with in the minutest parts.”
    Which sounds like he simply has the crayon in hand, doesn’t it?
    My guess — the artist might have used the holder for a white and a charcoal. Maybe there’d be the quick, practiced removal and insertion of different colored pastels in for some sections of work.
    But maybe the commercial pastels were fairly robust sticks simply held in the hand. Perhaps they were wrapped with cloth or paper to keep smears and unwanted transfer down to a minimum. I mean, that’s the way pastel artists work today, so why not in 1800?

    Reply
  28. Hi HJ —
    What a good question.
    I don’t know how the ‘changing color’ thing was done. As you see from the example (I have other paintings of pastel artists holding these) the brass or silver or bamboo holders certainly seem solidly wedged with the chalk.
    What a fuss and fiddle to change them.
    I have explicit directions for making pastels in this period that talk about rolling the soft finished product down to a very small radius before drying. These narrow sticks would be delicate to hold, and there would be no reason for such thin pastels if they weren’t intended for a holder.
    But the directions I’ve seen for actually working with pastels seem to indicate they were held in the hand. Lookit here:
    “When he (the student) wants a point to touch a small part with, he may break off a little of his Crayon against the box, which will produce a corner sit to work with in the minutest parts.”
    Which sounds like he simply has the crayon in hand, doesn’t it?
    My guess — the artist might have used the holder for a white and a charcoal. Maybe there’d be the quick, practiced removal and insertion of different colored pastels in for some sections of work.
    But maybe the commercial pastels were fairly robust sticks simply held in the hand. Perhaps they were wrapped with cloth or paper to keep smears and unwanted transfer down to a minimum. I mean, that’s the way pastel artists work today, so why not in 1800?

    Reply
  29. Hi HJ —
    What a good question.
    I don’t know how the ‘changing color’ thing was done. As you see from the example (I have other paintings of pastel artists holding these) the brass or silver or bamboo holders certainly seem solidly wedged with the chalk.
    What a fuss and fiddle to change them.
    I have explicit directions for making pastels in this period that talk about rolling the soft finished product down to a very small radius before drying. These narrow sticks would be delicate to hold, and there would be no reason for such thin pastels if they weren’t intended for a holder.
    But the directions I’ve seen for actually working with pastels seem to indicate they were held in the hand. Lookit here:
    “When he (the student) wants a point to touch a small part with, he may break off a little of his Crayon against the box, which will produce a corner sit to work with in the minutest parts.”
    Which sounds like he simply has the crayon in hand, doesn’t it?
    My guess — the artist might have used the holder for a white and a charcoal. Maybe there’d be the quick, practiced removal and insertion of different colored pastels in for some sections of work.
    But maybe the commercial pastels were fairly robust sticks simply held in the hand. Perhaps they were wrapped with cloth or paper to keep smears and unwanted transfer down to a minimum. I mean, that’s the way pastel artists work today, so why not in 1800?

    Reply
  30. Hi HJ —
    What a good question.
    I don’t know how the ‘changing color’ thing was done. As you see from the example (I have other paintings of pastel artists holding these) the brass or silver or bamboo holders certainly seem solidly wedged with the chalk.
    What a fuss and fiddle to change them.
    I have explicit directions for making pastels in this period that talk about rolling the soft finished product down to a very small radius before drying. These narrow sticks would be delicate to hold, and there would be no reason for such thin pastels if they weren’t intended for a holder.
    But the directions I’ve seen for actually working with pastels seem to indicate they were held in the hand. Lookit here:
    “When he (the student) wants a point to touch a small part with, he may break off a little of his Crayon against the box, which will produce a corner sit to work with in the minutest parts.”
    Which sounds like he simply has the crayon in hand, doesn’t it?
    My guess — the artist might have used the holder for a white and a charcoal. Maybe there’d be the quick, practiced removal and insertion of different colored pastels in for some sections of work.
    But maybe the commercial pastels were fairly robust sticks simply held in the hand. Perhaps they were wrapped with cloth or paper to keep smears and unwanted transfer down to a minimum. I mean, that’s the way pastel artists work today, so why not in 1800?

    Reply
  31. Hi Dee —
    Exactly why I’d want to use pastels. Quick, straightforward, forgiving.
    I can imagine travelling with a box of colors and some paper that fitted the top of the box. Heavy blue paper to draw on, thin tissue to lay over it till I got back to where I could brew up some fixative.

    Reply
  32. Hi Dee —
    Exactly why I’d want to use pastels. Quick, straightforward, forgiving.
    I can imagine travelling with a box of colors and some paper that fitted the top of the box. Heavy blue paper to draw on, thin tissue to lay over it till I got back to where I could brew up some fixative.

    Reply
  33. Hi Dee —
    Exactly why I’d want to use pastels. Quick, straightforward, forgiving.
    I can imagine travelling with a box of colors and some paper that fitted the top of the box. Heavy blue paper to draw on, thin tissue to lay over it till I got back to where I could brew up some fixative.

    Reply
  34. Hi Dee —
    Exactly why I’d want to use pastels. Quick, straightforward, forgiving.
    I can imagine travelling with a box of colors and some paper that fitted the top of the box. Heavy blue paper to draw on, thin tissue to lay over it till I got back to where I could brew up some fixative.

    Reply
  35. Hi Dee —
    Exactly why I’d want to use pastels. Quick, straightforward, forgiving.
    I can imagine travelling with a box of colors and some paper that fitted the top of the box. Heavy blue paper to draw on, thin tissue to lay over it till I got back to where I could brew up some fixative.

    Reply
  36. Pastels are a medium that are perfect to create these masterpieces. Love the feel and easy use and transporting them is so light and ideal.

    Reply
  37. Pastels are a medium that are perfect to create these masterpieces. Love the feel and easy use and transporting them is so light and ideal.

    Reply
  38. Pastels are a medium that are perfect to create these masterpieces. Love the feel and easy use and transporting them is so light and ideal.

    Reply
  39. Pastels are a medium that are perfect to create these masterpieces. Love the feel and easy use and transporting them is so light and ideal.

    Reply
  40. Pastels are a medium that are perfect to create these masterpieces. Love the feel and easy use and transporting them is so light and ideal.

    Reply
  41. I’d prob go with the pastels as I hate waiting between steps when working on something, I’d like not only the color & ability to shade, layer, etc they offer but being able to do it as I see it when I see it, not have to wait & go back later to finish. patience not one of my best virtues 😉

    Reply
  42. I’d prob go with the pastels as I hate waiting between steps when working on something, I’d like not only the color & ability to shade, layer, etc they offer but being able to do it as I see it when I see it, not have to wait & go back later to finish. patience not one of my best virtues 😉

    Reply
  43. I’d prob go with the pastels as I hate waiting between steps when working on something, I’d like not only the color & ability to shade, layer, etc they offer but being able to do it as I see it when I see it, not have to wait & go back later to finish. patience not one of my best virtues 😉

    Reply
  44. I’d prob go with the pastels as I hate waiting between steps when working on something, I’d like not only the color & ability to shade, layer, etc they offer but being able to do it as I see it when I see it, not have to wait & go back later to finish. patience not one of my best virtues 😉

    Reply
  45. I’d prob go with the pastels as I hate waiting between steps when working on something, I’d like not only the color & ability to shade, layer, etc they offer but being able to do it as I see it when I see it, not have to wait & go back later to finish. patience not one of my best virtues 😉

    Reply
  46. Hi Donna Ann —
    It’s pastels for the fast and fugitive, for the man (or woman) on the run.
    If your paper is prepared beforehand, creating the work would be as easy as sitting down and sketching.
    There’s also something satisfying about messing with art with your fingers. I dunnoh … It’s primal somehow. That’s how our pre-societal cave ancestors worked.
    (And some of the pigments used in the Regency date that far back.)

    Reply
  47. Hi Donna Ann —
    It’s pastels for the fast and fugitive, for the man (or woman) on the run.
    If your paper is prepared beforehand, creating the work would be as easy as sitting down and sketching.
    There’s also something satisfying about messing with art with your fingers. I dunnoh … It’s primal somehow. That’s how our pre-societal cave ancestors worked.
    (And some of the pigments used in the Regency date that far back.)

    Reply
  48. Hi Donna Ann —
    It’s pastels for the fast and fugitive, for the man (or woman) on the run.
    If your paper is prepared beforehand, creating the work would be as easy as sitting down and sketching.
    There’s also something satisfying about messing with art with your fingers. I dunnoh … It’s primal somehow. That’s how our pre-societal cave ancestors worked.
    (And some of the pigments used in the Regency date that far back.)

    Reply
  49. Hi Donna Ann —
    It’s pastels for the fast and fugitive, for the man (or woman) on the run.
    If your paper is prepared beforehand, creating the work would be as easy as sitting down and sketching.
    There’s also something satisfying about messing with art with your fingers. I dunnoh … It’s primal somehow. That’s how our pre-societal cave ancestors worked.
    (And some of the pigments used in the Regency date that far back.)

    Reply
  50. Hi Donna Ann —
    It’s pastels for the fast and fugitive, for the man (or woman) on the run.
    If your paper is prepared beforehand, creating the work would be as easy as sitting down and sketching.
    There’s also something satisfying about messing with art with your fingers. I dunnoh … It’s primal somehow. That’s how our pre-societal cave ancestors worked.
    (And some of the pigments used in the Regency date that far back.)

    Reply
  51. Well, if you look at the picture of the holder, there are rings around it. If you slide those up, it should release the prongs and the pastel should come out easily.
    Personally, my coloring skills are awful (not that I’m a particularly good artist to begin with), so I think I’d stick to my pencils and charcoal. But if I were to color, I think if go with pastels. Paint scares me- once it’s down you can’t do anything with it. Oils you can paint over, I guess, but the whole process terrifies me and I’d probably just sit there, petrified, not daring to waste paint on possible mistakes. And with watercolors, once you make a mistake, there’s very little you can do about it. (But at least it’s not a race with the drying paints.) Pastels and pencils seem much more forgiving. You can start out lightly, and if you like it, you can add more pressure, and if you don’t, just pick a different color and go over the whole thing.
    (But if I really have to choose, can I pick digital art? Then I can make as many mistakes as I want and just erase them completely.)

    Reply
  52. Well, if you look at the picture of the holder, there are rings around it. If you slide those up, it should release the prongs and the pastel should come out easily.
    Personally, my coloring skills are awful (not that I’m a particularly good artist to begin with), so I think I’d stick to my pencils and charcoal. But if I were to color, I think if go with pastels. Paint scares me- once it’s down you can’t do anything with it. Oils you can paint over, I guess, but the whole process terrifies me and I’d probably just sit there, petrified, not daring to waste paint on possible mistakes. And with watercolors, once you make a mistake, there’s very little you can do about it. (But at least it’s not a race with the drying paints.) Pastels and pencils seem much more forgiving. You can start out lightly, and if you like it, you can add more pressure, and if you don’t, just pick a different color and go over the whole thing.
    (But if I really have to choose, can I pick digital art? Then I can make as many mistakes as I want and just erase them completely.)

    Reply
  53. Well, if you look at the picture of the holder, there are rings around it. If you slide those up, it should release the prongs and the pastel should come out easily.
    Personally, my coloring skills are awful (not that I’m a particularly good artist to begin with), so I think I’d stick to my pencils and charcoal. But if I were to color, I think if go with pastels. Paint scares me- once it’s down you can’t do anything with it. Oils you can paint over, I guess, but the whole process terrifies me and I’d probably just sit there, petrified, not daring to waste paint on possible mistakes. And with watercolors, once you make a mistake, there’s very little you can do about it. (But at least it’s not a race with the drying paints.) Pastels and pencils seem much more forgiving. You can start out lightly, and if you like it, you can add more pressure, and if you don’t, just pick a different color and go over the whole thing.
    (But if I really have to choose, can I pick digital art? Then I can make as many mistakes as I want and just erase them completely.)

    Reply
  54. Well, if you look at the picture of the holder, there are rings around it. If you slide those up, it should release the prongs and the pastel should come out easily.
    Personally, my coloring skills are awful (not that I’m a particularly good artist to begin with), so I think I’d stick to my pencils and charcoal. But if I were to color, I think if go with pastels. Paint scares me- once it’s down you can’t do anything with it. Oils you can paint over, I guess, but the whole process terrifies me and I’d probably just sit there, petrified, not daring to waste paint on possible mistakes. And with watercolors, once you make a mistake, there’s very little you can do about it. (But at least it’s not a race with the drying paints.) Pastels and pencils seem much more forgiving. You can start out lightly, and if you like it, you can add more pressure, and if you don’t, just pick a different color and go over the whole thing.
    (But if I really have to choose, can I pick digital art? Then I can make as many mistakes as I want and just erase them completely.)

    Reply
  55. Well, if you look at the picture of the holder, there are rings around it. If you slide those up, it should release the prongs and the pastel should come out easily.
    Personally, my coloring skills are awful (not that I’m a particularly good artist to begin with), so I think I’d stick to my pencils and charcoal. But if I were to color, I think if go with pastels. Paint scares me- once it’s down you can’t do anything with it. Oils you can paint over, I guess, but the whole process terrifies me and I’d probably just sit there, petrified, not daring to waste paint on possible mistakes. And with watercolors, once you make a mistake, there’s very little you can do about it. (But at least it’s not a race with the drying paints.) Pastels and pencils seem much more forgiving. You can start out lightly, and if you like it, you can add more pressure, and if you don’t, just pick a different color and go over the whole thing.
    (But if I really have to choose, can I pick digital art? Then I can make as many mistakes as I want and just erase them completely.)

    Reply
  56. Ah, this takes me back to art school! Pastels are beautiful but amazingly messy, conti crayons too hard, water colors are very unforgiving of errors, and oil paints require far more patience than I have. *G* But in the right hands, they can all produce wonderful results. If forced to choose, I’d probably go with watercolors.

    Reply
  57. Ah, this takes me back to art school! Pastels are beautiful but amazingly messy, conti crayons too hard, water colors are very unforgiving of errors, and oil paints require far more patience than I have. *G* But in the right hands, they can all produce wonderful results. If forced to choose, I’d probably go with watercolors.

    Reply
  58. Ah, this takes me back to art school! Pastels are beautiful but amazingly messy, conti crayons too hard, water colors are very unforgiving of errors, and oil paints require far more patience than I have. *G* But in the right hands, they can all produce wonderful results. If forced to choose, I’d probably go with watercolors.

    Reply
  59. Ah, this takes me back to art school! Pastels are beautiful but amazingly messy, conti crayons too hard, water colors are very unforgiving of errors, and oil paints require far more patience than I have. *G* But in the right hands, they can all produce wonderful results. If forced to choose, I’d probably go with watercolors.

    Reply
  60. Ah, this takes me back to art school! Pastels are beautiful but amazingly messy, conti crayons too hard, water colors are very unforgiving of errors, and oil paints require far more patience than I have. *G* But in the right hands, they can all produce wonderful results. If forced to choose, I’d probably go with watercolors.

    Reply
  61. I’ll opt for Conté crayons. The year 1794 surprises me as I don’t associate the French Revolutionary years with inventions–unless the guillotine qualifies.

    Reply
  62. I’ll opt for Conté crayons. The year 1794 surprises me as I don’t associate the French Revolutionary years with inventions–unless the guillotine qualifies.

    Reply
  63. I’ll opt for Conté crayons. The year 1794 surprises me as I don’t associate the French Revolutionary years with inventions–unless the guillotine qualifies.

    Reply
  64. I’ll opt for Conté crayons. The year 1794 surprises me as I don’t associate the French Revolutionary years with inventions–unless the guillotine qualifies.

    Reply
  65. I’ll opt for Conté crayons. The year 1794 surprises me as I don’t associate the French Revolutionary years with inventions–unless the guillotine qualifies.

    Reply
  66. What a facinating post, Jo. I flunked coloring between the lines with my Crayola crayons, but did pretty well with paint by numbers. That, unfortunately is the extent of my artistic ability. I’d love to try pastels, though.

    Reply
  67. What a facinating post, Jo. I flunked coloring between the lines with my Crayola crayons, but did pretty well with paint by numbers. That, unfortunately is the extent of my artistic ability. I’d love to try pastels, though.

    Reply
  68. What a facinating post, Jo. I flunked coloring between the lines with my Crayola crayons, but did pretty well with paint by numbers. That, unfortunately is the extent of my artistic ability. I’d love to try pastels, though.

    Reply
  69. What a facinating post, Jo. I flunked coloring between the lines with my Crayola crayons, but did pretty well with paint by numbers. That, unfortunately is the extent of my artistic ability. I’d love to try pastels, though.

    Reply
  70. What a facinating post, Jo. I flunked coloring between the lines with my Crayola crayons, but did pretty well with paint by numbers. That, unfortunately is the extent of my artistic ability. I’d love to try pastels, though.

    Reply
  71. Oh, how I would LOVE to possess that beautiful paintbox. I do dabble in watercolours and would have done so as a Regency gal. In fact I wrote one heroine, Rose, who is an artist and that fact sets the story in motion. But I was carefully vague about exactly what colours she had in her painting ‘materials’… as everyone was highly impressed, you just knew she’d achieved good results.

    Reply
  72. Oh, how I would LOVE to possess that beautiful paintbox. I do dabble in watercolours and would have done so as a Regency gal. In fact I wrote one heroine, Rose, who is an artist and that fact sets the story in motion. But I was carefully vague about exactly what colours she had in her painting ‘materials’… as everyone was highly impressed, you just knew she’d achieved good results.

    Reply
  73. Oh, how I would LOVE to possess that beautiful paintbox. I do dabble in watercolours and would have done so as a Regency gal. In fact I wrote one heroine, Rose, who is an artist and that fact sets the story in motion. But I was carefully vague about exactly what colours she had in her painting ‘materials’… as everyone was highly impressed, you just knew she’d achieved good results.

    Reply
  74. Oh, how I would LOVE to possess that beautiful paintbox. I do dabble in watercolours and would have done so as a Regency gal. In fact I wrote one heroine, Rose, who is an artist and that fact sets the story in motion. But I was carefully vague about exactly what colours she had in her painting ‘materials’… as everyone was highly impressed, you just knew she’d achieved good results.

    Reply
  75. Oh, how I would LOVE to possess that beautiful paintbox. I do dabble in watercolours and would have done so as a Regency gal. In fact I wrote one heroine, Rose, who is an artist and that fact sets the story in motion. But I was carefully vague about exactly what colours she had in her painting ‘materials’… as everyone was highly impressed, you just knew she’d achieved good results.

    Reply
  76. Hi Mary Jo —
    Watercolors and I have had a troubled relationship. A murky, mucky, muddled relationship.
    It’s sad really …

    Reply
  77. Hi Mary Jo —
    Watercolors and I have had a troubled relationship. A murky, mucky, muddled relationship.
    It’s sad really …

    Reply
  78. Hi Mary Jo —
    Watercolors and I have had a troubled relationship. A murky, mucky, muddled relationship.
    It’s sad really …

    Reply
  79. Hi Mary Jo —
    Watercolors and I have had a troubled relationship. A murky, mucky, muddled relationship.
    It’s sad really …

    Reply
  80. Hi Mary Jo —
    Watercolors and I have had a troubled relationship. A murky, mucky, muddled relationship.
    It’s sad really …

    Reply
  81. Hi Liz —
    Apparently Conte crayons were invented because the disruption of war and the British naval blockade cut France off from British and German sources of graphite. (The name graphite comes from the Greek word ‘to write. Cool, huh?)’
    Before Conte, black drawing pencils were pure graphite. To stretch the scarce graphite, he made them of clay and graphite in a waxy binder, dried in a kiln ….
    and the rest is history.

    Reply
  82. Hi Liz —
    Apparently Conte crayons were invented because the disruption of war and the British naval blockade cut France off from British and German sources of graphite. (The name graphite comes from the Greek word ‘to write. Cool, huh?)’
    Before Conte, black drawing pencils were pure graphite. To stretch the scarce graphite, he made them of clay and graphite in a waxy binder, dried in a kiln ….
    and the rest is history.

    Reply
  83. Hi Liz —
    Apparently Conte crayons were invented because the disruption of war and the British naval blockade cut France off from British and German sources of graphite. (The name graphite comes from the Greek word ‘to write. Cool, huh?)’
    Before Conte, black drawing pencils were pure graphite. To stretch the scarce graphite, he made them of clay and graphite in a waxy binder, dried in a kiln ….
    and the rest is history.

    Reply
  84. Hi Liz —
    Apparently Conte crayons were invented because the disruption of war and the British naval blockade cut France off from British and German sources of graphite. (The name graphite comes from the Greek word ‘to write. Cool, huh?)’
    Before Conte, black drawing pencils were pure graphite. To stretch the scarce graphite, he made them of clay and graphite in a waxy binder, dried in a kiln ….
    and the rest is history.

    Reply
  85. Hi Liz —
    Apparently Conte crayons were invented because the disruption of war and the British naval blockade cut France off from British and German sources of graphite. (The name graphite comes from the Greek word ‘to write. Cool, huh?)’
    Before Conte, black drawing pencils were pure graphite. To stretch the scarce graphite, he made them of clay and graphite in a waxy binder, dried in a kiln ….
    and the rest is history.

    Reply
  86. Hi Ella —
    Try a set of cray-pas. Very satisfying. Better color and smoother application than crayons. Cleaner to use than chalks.

    Reply
  87. Hi Ella —
    Try a set of cray-pas. Very satisfying. Better color and smoother application than crayons. Cleaner to use than chalks.

    Reply
  88. Hi Ella —
    Try a set of cray-pas. Very satisfying. Better color and smoother application than crayons. Cleaner to use than chalks.

    Reply
  89. Hi Ella —
    Try a set of cray-pas. Very satisfying. Better color and smoother application than crayons. Cleaner to use than chalks.

    Reply
  90. Hi Ella —
    Try a set of cray-pas. Very satisfying. Better color and smoother application than crayons. Cleaner to use than chalks.

    Reply
  91. Fascinating post, Joanna!
    I would definitely have to go with the pastels. As has been said more than once – they are far more forgiving! My artistic endeavors are limited to needlework and cake decorating.
    If I could draw I fear I would be far more interested in satirical drawings a la Cruickshank. I LOVE his work.
    I have to admire anyone who created great artistic beauty before 1900. Working with some of these had to be tough!

    Reply
  92. Fascinating post, Joanna!
    I would definitely have to go with the pastels. As has been said more than once – they are far more forgiving! My artistic endeavors are limited to needlework and cake decorating.
    If I could draw I fear I would be far more interested in satirical drawings a la Cruickshank. I LOVE his work.
    I have to admire anyone who created great artistic beauty before 1900. Working with some of these had to be tough!

    Reply
  93. Fascinating post, Joanna!
    I would definitely have to go with the pastels. As has been said more than once – they are far more forgiving! My artistic endeavors are limited to needlework and cake decorating.
    If I could draw I fear I would be far more interested in satirical drawings a la Cruickshank. I LOVE his work.
    I have to admire anyone who created great artistic beauty before 1900. Working with some of these had to be tough!

    Reply
  94. Fascinating post, Joanna!
    I would definitely have to go with the pastels. As has been said more than once – they are far more forgiving! My artistic endeavors are limited to needlework and cake decorating.
    If I could draw I fear I would be far more interested in satirical drawings a la Cruickshank. I LOVE his work.
    I have to admire anyone who created great artistic beauty before 1900. Working with some of these had to be tough!

    Reply
  95. Fascinating post, Joanna!
    I would definitely have to go with the pastels. As has been said more than once – they are far more forgiving! My artistic endeavors are limited to needlework and cake decorating.
    If I could draw I fear I would be far more interested in satirical drawings a la Cruickshank. I LOVE his work.
    I have to admire anyone who created great artistic beauty before 1900. Working with some of these had to be tough!

    Reply
  96. Very interesting blog, Joanna.
    I love the look of watercolors, so I’d probably go with them, although I did love the bright colors of pastels. Odd that the colors we think of today as ‘pastels’ are faded.

    Reply
  97. Very interesting blog, Joanna.
    I love the look of watercolors, so I’d probably go with them, although I did love the bright colors of pastels. Odd that the colors we think of today as ‘pastels’ are faded.

    Reply
  98. Very interesting blog, Joanna.
    I love the look of watercolors, so I’d probably go with them, although I did love the bright colors of pastels. Odd that the colors we think of today as ‘pastels’ are faded.

    Reply
  99. Very interesting blog, Joanna.
    I love the look of watercolors, so I’d probably go with them, although I did love the bright colors of pastels. Odd that the colors we think of today as ‘pastels’ are faded.

    Reply
  100. Very interesting blog, Joanna.
    I love the look of watercolors, so I’d probably go with them, although I did love the bright colors of pastels. Odd that the colors we think of today as ‘pastels’ are faded.

    Reply
  101. Hi Louisa —
    Most of the bright pigments we take for granted come after the Regency. They just kept making more and more colors.
    And yes, the Regency was a great time for visual satire. Rowlandson, Cruickshank. Hogarth. Gillray.

    Reply
  102. Hi Louisa —
    Most of the bright pigments we take for granted come after the Regency. They just kept making more and more colors.
    And yes, the Regency was a great time for visual satire. Rowlandson, Cruickshank. Hogarth. Gillray.

    Reply
  103. Hi Louisa —
    Most of the bright pigments we take for granted come after the Regency. They just kept making more and more colors.
    And yes, the Regency was a great time for visual satire. Rowlandson, Cruickshank. Hogarth. Gillray.

    Reply
  104. Hi Louisa —
    Most of the bright pigments we take for granted come after the Regency. They just kept making more and more colors.
    And yes, the Regency was a great time for visual satire. Rowlandson, Cruickshank. Hogarth. Gillray.

    Reply
  105. Hi Louisa —
    Most of the bright pigments we take for granted come after the Regency. They just kept making more and more colors.
    And yes, the Regency was a great time for visual satire. Rowlandson, Cruickshank. Hogarth. Gillray.

    Reply
  106. Hi Anne —
    It is strange, isn’t it, that pastel means the shade with white added. Maybe pastels were considered less vivid and rich than oil paintings.’

    Reply
  107. Hi Anne —
    It is strange, isn’t it, that pastel means the shade with white added. Maybe pastels were considered less vivid and rich than oil paintings.’

    Reply
  108. Hi Anne —
    It is strange, isn’t it, that pastel means the shade with white added. Maybe pastels were considered less vivid and rich than oil paintings.’

    Reply
  109. Hi Anne —
    It is strange, isn’t it, that pastel means the shade with white added. Maybe pastels were considered less vivid and rich than oil paintings.’

    Reply
  110. Hi Anne —
    It is strange, isn’t it, that pastel means the shade with white added. Maybe pastels were considered less vivid and rich than oil paintings.’

    Reply
  111. If I had a smidge of talent, I’d want to paint in oils – and I’d have been the first Impressionist, 70 years early!
    Very interesting post; I love reading the history behind the historical novels we love so much.
    Please don’t include me in the draw as I already have all of Joanna’s books – unless there’s a new one (post The Black Hawk) we don’t know about?? 😉

    Reply
  112. If I had a smidge of talent, I’d want to paint in oils – and I’d have been the first Impressionist, 70 years early!
    Very interesting post; I love reading the history behind the historical novels we love so much.
    Please don’t include me in the draw as I already have all of Joanna’s books – unless there’s a new one (post The Black Hawk) we don’t know about?? 😉

    Reply
  113. If I had a smidge of talent, I’d want to paint in oils – and I’d have been the first Impressionist, 70 years early!
    Very interesting post; I love reading the history behind the historical novels we love so much.
    Please don’t include me in the draw as I already have all of Joanna’s books – unless there’s a new one (post The Black Hawk) we don’t know about?? 😉

    Reply
  114. If I had a smidge of talent, I’d want to paint in oils – and I’d have been the first Impressionist, 70 years early!
    Very interesting post; I love reading the history behind the historical novels we love so much.
    Please don’t include me in the draw as I already have all of Joanna’s books – unless there’s a new one (post The Black Hawk) we don’t know about?? 😉

    Reply
  115. If I had a smidge of talent, I’d want to paint in oils – and I’d have been the first Impressionist, 70 years early!
    Very interesting post; I love reading the history behind the historical novels we love so much.
    Please don’t include me in the draw as I already have all of Joanna’s books – unless there’s a new one (post The Black Hawk) we don’t know about?? 😉

    Reply
  116. Hallo, everyone! 🙂
    I was especially keen to read this, as although I have dipped into studying Art History time to time, such as the Pre-Raphaelite and Renaissance, I haven’t acknowledged the Regency, as of yet! It’s one of those things that I have put aside until I can start to tour art galleries again, as I love the emmersion of art by way of your impressions as you stand in front of a painting! 🙂 What is even more interesting is that my personal preference is oil pastels, as I nibbed into art whilst a young girl, and look forward to picking it up again! Chaulk is an interesting medium as well, but I don’t find it as easy to manipulate as the oil pastels, as they give you a richness in colour that isn’t flaky or whispy as much as chaulk, as I find chaulk a bit frustrating at times! I am even starting to experiment with water colour crayons, which is through my mixed media pursuits! 🙂 🙂 Ironically, the only medium I cannot return too is oil painting as the chemicals disagree with my nose! 🙁 I loved the pictures of the artist boxes, and the finite detail that the Regency artists could achieve with the original ‘crayons’!! 🙂 Poison by method of artist crayon!? Ohh indeed that is an intriquing spin on things!! Ooh, I love seeing that most of the colour palette used were of natural and earthen colours ~ my favourite! 🙂 Beautiful post! Very inspiring!
    Do you know of any collections of Regency artists currently on display in one of our museums or galleries!? Which Regency artist became the most prominent to be known!?

    Reply
  117. Hallo, everyone! 🙂
    I was especially keen to read this, as although I have dipped into studying Art History time to time, such as the Pre-Raphaelite and Renaissance, I haven’t acknowledged the Regency, as of yet! It’s one of those things that I have put aside until I can start to tour art galleries again, as I love the emmersion of art by way of your impressions as you stand in front of a painting! 🙂 What is even more interesting is that my personal preference is oil pastels, as I nibbed into art whilst a young girl, and look forward to picking it up again! Chaulk is an interesting medium as well, but I don’t find it as easy to manipulate as the oil pastels, as they give you a richness in colour that isn’t flaky or whispy as much as chaulk, as I find chaulk a bit frustrating at times! I am even starting to experiment with water colour crayons, which is through my mixed media pursuits! 🙂 🙂 Ironically, the only medium I cannot return too is oil painting as the chemicals disagree with my nose! 🙁 I loved the pictures of the artist boxes, and the finite detail that the Regency artists could achieve with the original ‘crayons’!! 🙂 Poison by method of artist crayon!? Ohh indeed that is an intriquing spin on things!! Ooh, I love seeing that most of the colour palette used were of natural and earthen colours ~ my favourite! 🙂 Beautiful post! Very inspiring!
    Do you know of any collections of Regency artists currently on display in one of our museums or galleries!? Which Regency artist became the most prominent to be known!?

    Reply
  118. Hallo, everyone! 🙂
    I was especially keen to read this, as although I have dipped into studying Art History time to time, such as the Pre-Raphaelite and Renaissance, I haven’t acknowledged the Regency, as of yet! It’s one of those things that I have put aside until I can start to tour art galleries again, as I love the emmersion of art by way of your impressions as you stand in front of a painting! 🙂 What is even more interesting is that my personal preference is oil pastels, as I nibbed into art whilst a young girl, and look forward to picking it up again! Chaulk is an interesting medium as well, but I don’t find it as easy to manipulate as the oil pastels, as they give you a richness in colour that isn’t flaky or whispy as much as chaulk, as I find chaulk a bit frustrating at times! I am even starting to experiment with water colour crayons, which is through my mixed media pursuits! 🙂 🙂 Ironically, the only medium I cannot return too is oil painting as the chemicals disagree with my nose! 🙁 I loved the pictures of the artist boxes, and the finite detail that the Regency artists could achieve with the original ‘crayons’!! 🙂 Poison by method of artist crayon!? Ohh indeed that is an intriquing spin on things!! Ooh, I love seeing that most of the colour palette used were of natural and earthen colours ~ my favourite! 🙂 Beautiful post! Very inspiring!
    Do you know of any collections of Regency artists currently on display in one of our museums or galleries!? Which Regency artist became the most prominent to be known!?

    Reply
  119. Hallo, everyone! 🙂
    I was especially keen to read this, as although I have dipped into studying Art History time to time, such as the Pre-Raphaelite and Renaissance, I haven’t acknowledged the Regency, as of yet! It’s one of those things that I have put aside until I can start to tour art galleries again, as I love the emmersion of art by way of your impressions as you stand in front of a painting! 🙂 What is even more interesting is that my personal preference is oil pastels, as I nibbed into art whilst a young girl, and look forward to picking it up again! Chaulk is an interesting medium as well, but I don’t find it as easy to manipulate as the oil pastels, as they give you a richness in colour that isn’t flaky or whispy as much as chaulk, as I find chaulk a bit frustrating at times! I am even starting to experiment with water colour crayons, which is through my mixed media pursuits! 🙂 🙂 Ironically, the only medium I cannot return too is oil painting as the chemicals disagree with my nose! 🙁 I loved the pictures of the artist boxes, and the finite detail that the Regency artists could achieve with the original ‘crayons’!! 🙂 Poison by method of artist crayon!? Ohh indeed that is an intriquing spin on things!! Ooh, I love seeing that most of the colour palette used were of natural and earthen colours ~ my favourite! 🙂 Beautiful post! Very inspiring!
    Do you know of any collections of Regency artists currently on display in one of our museums or galleries!? Which Regency artist became the most prominent to be known!?

    Reply
  120. Hallo, everyone! 🙂
    I was especially keen to read this, as although I have dipped into studying Art History time to time, such as the Pre-Raphaelite and Renaissance, I haven’t acknowledged the Regency, as of yet! It’s one of those things that I have put aside until I can start to tour art galleries again, as I love the emmersion of art by way of your impressions as you stand in front of a painting! 🙂 What is even more interesting is that my personal preference is oil pastels, as I nibbed into art whilst a young girl, and look forward to picking it up again! Chaulk is an interesting medium as well, but I don’t find it as easy to manipulate as the oil pastels, as they give you a richness in colour that isn’t flaky or whispy as much as chaulk, as I find chaulk a bit frustrating at times! I am even starting to experiment with water colour crayons, which is through my mixed media pursuits! 🙂 🙂 Ironically, the only medium I cannot return too is oil painting as the chemicals disagree with my nose! 🙁 I loved the pictures of the artist boxes, and the finite detail that the Regency artists could achieve with the original ‘crayons’!! 🙂 Poison by method of artist crayon!? Ohh indeed that is an intriquing spin on things!! Ooh, I love seeing that most of the colour palette used were of natural and earthen colours ~ my favourite! 🙂 Beautiful post! Very inspiring!
    Do you know of any collections of Regency artists currently on display in one of our museums or galleries!? Which Regency artist became the most prominent to be known!?

    Reply
  121. I’m more of a pen and ink girl or even pencil drawings. I like nature and animals best. Something over looking a river, or field would be perfect!

    Reply
  122. I’m more of a pen and ink girl or even pencil drawings. I like nature and animals best. Something over looking a river, or field would be perfect!

    Reply
  123. I’m more of a pen and ink girl or even pencil drawings. I like nature and animals best. Something over looking a river, or field would be perfect!

    Reply
  124. I’m more of a pen and ink girl or even pencil drawings. I like nature and animals best. Something over looking a river, or field would be perfect!

    Reply
  125. I’m more of a pen and ink girl or even pencil drawings. I like nature and animals best. Something over looking a river, or field would be perfect!

    Reply
  126. That’s the basis of the visual arts, isn’t it. Pencil sketch — they had pencils — give you everything.
    Then pen and ink and maybe inkwash. Maybe a little judicious application of charcoals. Apparently the best charcoals were made of willow.

    Reply
  127. That’s the basis of the visual arts, isn’t it. Pencil sketch — they had pencils — give you everything.
    Then pen and ink and maybe inkwash. Maybe a little judicious application of charcoals. Apparently the best charcoals were made of willow.

    Reply
  128. That’s the basis of the visual arts, isn’t it. Pencil sketch — they had pencils — give you everything.
    Then pen and ink and maybe inkwash. Maybe a little judicious application of charcoals. Apparently the best charcoals were made of willow.

    Reply
  129. That’s the basis of the visual arts, isn’t it. Pencil sketch — they had pencils — give you everything.
    Then pen and ink and maybe inkwash. Maybe a little judicious application of charcoals. Apparently the best charcoals were made of willow.

    Reply
  130. That’s the basis of the visual arts, isn’t it. Pencil sketch — they had pencils — give you everything.
    Then pen and ink and maybe inkwash. Maybe a little judicious application of charcoals. Apparently the best charcoals were made of willow.

    Reply

Leave a Comment