Talk:Distemper (paint)

With all due respect a read of the article external references will show that it is more about the building industry (painting walls) than visual arts.CDT1997 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that this article needs a section on oil distemper and probably should have the soft distemper reviewed as well. I do not know enough about paints to be able to do this myself, so anyone who can help, please, go ahead.

--Segregold 18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Tempera

The current broad description and definition at the Tempera article makes it include Distemper (paint) by definition[1]. There are further references that Distemper is a sub form of tempera[2] although some sources cite a national, regional, and trade difference in usage of term[3]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The terms are confusing enough as it is without lumping them together. Although there is some overlap, tempera usually means egg tempera and distemper means a water or glue base, which are more than sufficiently different to justify two articles. Note how most of the ghits at 2 are over 100 years old! Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking deeper into the subject we seem to have the following:

• Tempera may mean "Egg" tempera to some but "Tempera" has an overall definition once you step beyond "egg"[4] and Distemper comes up as a sub of "tempera painting"[5]. The (consensus decision?) to have an article called Tempera meant that all forms of that media, including Egg tempera, Distemper got thrown under it.
• The Distemper (paint) article is kind of incomplete and contradictory as to what it even includes. In the Distemper (paint) article and in the Distemper (paint)#Examples of paintings in distemper section are several different referenced versions of the technique with on of the two illustrations (Dirk Bouts) actually labeled as "Glue tempera" by the National Gallery, London.
• We have a tertiary source check giving us a definition of Distemper as a type of tempera (Britannica online)
• There may be enough material to have a sub article called Distemper (paint) (I'm not sure once all the contradictory referenced material is removed) but it should be described in both articles as a sub type of Tempera.

More digging to come. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is I think a certain shift in terminology going on - the Bouts was "Glue size on linen" in 1995 in "The National Gallery, Complete Illustrated Catalogue, National Gallery Publications, 1995, ISBN 185709050" but went to "glue tempera" in 1998 in "National Gallery Catalogues (new series): The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings, Lorne Campbell, 1998, ISBN 185709171", which they now follow. It remains the only painting they describe in this way, which is not I think because it is technically any different from the other "glue" ones here. This painting (one of a set with the London Bouts) is illustrated (p.41) in the Campbell entry on the Bouts, and also described as "glue tempera on linen", but as you can see the Getty describe it as "distemper on linen". There's no mention of tempera here, which is normally very authoritative. Nor is any cross-over admitted here - click on individual items. Sources are listed at bottom. The MMA still uses "distemper" [6]. Also see the "synonyms" here! I think the two articles should be maintained, but the cross-over usage mentioned. It still seems to be a minority usage, but both articles need adjusting. Is Campbell ahead or behind the times? I would say his is the newer usage. Now I see that Boston also say calling distemper tempera is "incorrect". Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The confusion about the terms is all the more reason to keep them in separate articles. According to Mayer (The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques, 3rd ed., p. 643), the word "distemper" may be understood differently in Great Britain vs. the US, and "confusion sometimes arises when its French equivalent Détrempe is carelessly translated, because in France this term has two meanings, both distemper and tempera." An analogy might be fruit and vegetable, which overlap (e.g. a pea is both) but would not be improved by merging. Ewulp (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. They should remain separate. A "see also" link would be enough. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Definitely oppose. This particular piece is now mainly about distemper as an artistic material, but as the previous writer notes, distemper is a common term for ordinary wall paint. The article needs another section about the tradition of plain distempering or white/colourwashing walls and indeed woodwork. The term distemper is widely used in Britain to indicate a lime-based paint that is still available to buy (eg from Farrow and Ball, Francesca's Limewash, etc) and that is often found below modern paints in older houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture Girl (talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Definitely oppose. The confusion is made worse by referring to "soft distemper" and "oil bound distemper" in an article that is mainly concerned with fine art. There should be a separate article dealing with the medium used in the decoration of buildings. Some facts concerning the latter have been given in my blog News from ColourmanColourman (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the same materials. If the tempera article implies the use of sizing it need to be changed. There is plenty of material here for two articles.Dave (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Well I think at 6/0 oppose after 4 months the proposal can be considered rejected, & I have rewmoved the tags. But we all probably agree that both articles need adding to on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Distemper (paint). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001113913/http://www.kimbellart.org/database/conservation.cfm?acquisition_id=AP%201987.04 to http://www.kimbellart.org/database/conservation.cfm?acquisition_id=AP%201987.04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)