Talk:Oil pastel

I upgraded the page a lot, but now I'm going to take a step back because I can't think of anything much more to add that Wikipedia can use. If anyone thinks something more should be added then please contact me because I might be able to get some of the information. Graxe 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• You've done a great job here! Well done.Guinnog 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m not an expert but as far as I have read, artist's quality oil pastels do not contain "stearic acid" or palmitric acid and the oil is inert so I would hope that the abovementioned durability problems would not come into play. Yes it’s true that the original oil pastels created by the Sakura group did contain "stearic acid" and types of oil ie. coconut that are not likely inert could therefore penetrate the paper, causing it to become brittle and crumble. Also I believe that the blooming of wax would not be a problem either with the more recently produced oil pastels, as the oil is inert and therefore a build-up of fatty acids would not result. I noticed that the link for discussion of evaporation and efflorescence discussed palmitic and stearic acid effects, but that was a study done for oil ‘paints’ and not for oil ‘pastels’. Was there some mixup of facts in this article? Jasminhoffmann 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, without a lot of stearic acid or some other waxy substance, it would not be an oil pastel but paint :o). More stable waxes would in effect make it a wax crayon. Whether the oil is inert — it isn't — has little to do with it being absorbed by paper. It's true that Sennelier oil pastels do not show any wax bloom.--MWAK (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed some minor grammatical errors in the article. Non-user 16:54, 4 February 2006

Hi Graxe et co,

Thinking about the article as an average wikipedia "user", I wonder if you agree that the History section has too much detail and could do with some restructuring/simplification. How about something like :

"In 1921, in response to a suggestion for the overhaul of the education system, Japanese teacher Rinzo Satake wanted to introduce more free drawing time using colour to his students.

As a result, Satake and his brother-in-law Shuku Sasaki founded the Sakura Cray-Pas Company to produce an improved wax crayon. The new product..."

It's just one person's idea of course, but I think it might make easier reading with the detail of Yamamoto's proposed reforms in a little subsidiary article...

One other little suggestion, I think the little piece on schools at the end of the first paragraph could be more NPOV if it read something like :

"Initially, oil pastels were mainly used in private schools as State schools generally couldn't afford the medium and favoured the coloured pencil, a cheaper German invention. Some (who?, which source?) have suggested that State schools might have been suspicious of the new medium due to its association with "self-expression" - in contrast to the coloured pencil which was widely promoted in Europe at the time as a means to instill work discipline in young children."

Again, just a suggestion. I don't think you need to mention "liberal" and "rich" in association with private schools when you have wikified the link to the Private Schools article. Just putting my toes in the wikipedia water :) Let me know what you "experienced bods" think. Cheers ! WK 217.155.34.205 14:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you feel the Oil pastel page should be changed, feel free, have at it, this is what Wikipedia is all about. Also most of the information there that you had problems with was translated from the Netherlands version of the Oil pastel page. Mwak did most of that so you will ahve to talk to him about that. I have been busy in RL that I haven't had a chance to go over the page completely yet and yes that sounds kinda biased to be which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Aslo I'm not so experienced. I have only done less than 20 actual edits and I joined in January! :P Thank you, Graxe 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

John Elliot Links

Though John Elliot is a very good oil pastel painter, I feel that his links should be taken out for three reasons 1) It would look like a support of his web site and 2) I did not use his book for the reference material though it may be useful to keep in as a good book on oil pastels, 3) because the person who edited did not sign in we dont know where the links came from and if it could be support for John Elliots site. If the links arent taken down then I think at least the link name for his webpage should be changed. Tell me what you all think. Graxe 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, remove them. I thought the IP that added them was you, otherwise I would have removed them at the time. NicM 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Ok removing. Graxe 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-edited and added the info about John Elliots book with a separate new topic heading as the book is another source of reference to those working in oil pastels even though it is stated by Graxe that it was not used as a specific reference for what is written above thus far. John Elliot has also written numerous articles on the subject for magazines including American Artist and The Artists Magazine and is a great supporter and promoter of the medium. Dorothy Coleman

Perhaps you should write the John Elliot (author) article then put it in the See Also, if he meets WP:BIO? I'm not really convinced his book should be singled out here if it wasn't directly used as a source. NicM 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

I do not consider listing the book as being singled out, as you say. I consider it of use and a source to those interested in this particular medium as there are few books written. Dorothy Coleman

The book is a good book but I didn't use it as a source it would qualify for further reading but I don't think any links should be added to the Oil pastel page for his website or anything like that as then we get into the whole problem of which artists websites to use and I don't want to have a fight about this page. I wont remove the book but I restate that I didn't use it as a source and it shouldn't be cited as a source. Graxe 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The book is now listed as further reading. On the same token the same should apply to personal artwork. Dorothy Coleman

The reason why I put up my artwork on the Oil Pastel page was 2 reasons actually. First and most important is that Oil pastels were created in 1924 and there are no public domain pictures of paintings in Oil pastels that I know of because public domain is currently from 1911 and before. I also was encouraged to put my art work up by other users (Sannse and sean_black) because there really is no other option for a picture to demonstrate what an Oil pastel painting looks like even if my artwork isnt that wonderful. Thank you. Graxe 03:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more user created work like this, not less. It's certainly no more self-promotional than all the many user produced photos around on the project. Of course, were there a historical work that is out of copyright, then we should use that (possibly as well, rather than instead of). And if a professional artist allows a photo of his work to be used under GFDL then that's great. But in the absence of that, user created work is miles better than yet another dubious fair user claim. I've got a long-standing item on my to-do list, to create and photograph examples for all our embroidery articles. Well done to Graxe for actually getting his done ;) -- sannse (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kanae Yamamoto

A heads up: The link supplied in this article links to another Kanae Yamamoto. --68.123.153.25 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Have used Oil pastels.great! However I see no mention in aricle on any artists of reknown that uses Oil Pastels!

I see no mention of any artists in the article that uses Oil Pastels exclusively! Are there any! Thank You!Eddson storms (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe even a mention of some famous examples of work done exclusive to the oil pastel ? I'll look into it, I'm sure there are plenty and prob have some good pics on Wiki commons =) Eruditess (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand

How could oil pastels have not been invented until the 1920s when this german patent from 1913 talks about oil pastels? https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/000535535/publication/DE279638C?q=pn%3DDE279638C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirad1000 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And this one wich is older talks about a variety of crayons that include: "Thus there are colored crayons, -wax-crayons, pastel-crayons, oil-crayous, paint-crayons, slate-crayons, and other such like marking materials

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/002650809/publication/US582133A?q=pn%3DUS582133A

Plus https://patents.google.com/patent/US189338A/en?q=(oil+pigment+crayon)&before=priority:19200101&oq=(oil+pigment+crayon)+before:priority:19200101&sort=old&page=1 "This invention relates to a compound for crayons for marking on porcelain, glass, or other smooth surface; and it consists in acomposition formed by mixing a pigment with melted bees-wax, suet, and oil of cedar" Pretty oil pastel-like formula if you ask me.

Mirad1000 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)