Talk:Gesso

Composition

Yes; but what IS it? Graham 07:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Acrylics have a fairly long chain molecule, but fairly rigid. Urethanes tend to be more elastic but less durable to UV light (sunlight). Polycarbonates have a great durability to UV but are brittle. Acetals are susceptible to UV (without UV inhibitors) and are flexible to an extent, but are not transparent. Latex and enamels used in paint are quite resistant to UV, but haven't been tried (in my knowledge) with suspending a hard agent such as calcium carbonate which is used in traditional 'Gesso.' Traditional Gesso uses rabbit-skin glue which is protein based, not polymer based, and used from the fat from the skins of rabbits which the monks raised in the middle ages. (at least that sounds reasonable for an explanation.) My opinion, they used the rabbits for food and their extra ingredients for their projects. They mixed the fat scraped from the skin into the mix of calcium carbonate to create a hard firm substrate to paint on. The mix held enough surface tension to suspend the solids, had enough flexibility to coat the surface of the wood they painted on, and porosity to adhere to the paint (tempura - egg-yolk-based paint) to make their icons. Meanwhile, it also had the protein molecular bonding (that they were unaware of at the time) to make a secure connection to the substrate they painted on (usually a hard, straight, wood surface.) I think a great connection these days, if artists use traditional tempura-based paints (egg-yolk) is to use traditional rabbit-skin glue as it has been tried and proven for 800 years (protein based paint to protein based substrate). Meanwhile, Acrylic gesso is proven to be durable (and more flexible than traditional gesso) and might provide a better bond to the newer acrylic-based pigments.j Acrylic to wood bonding is probably pretty good, but I haven't had a lot of experience, except super-glue which is a cyanoacrylate... a solvent-based acrylic.

Just FYI, I'm planning on using rabbit-skin glue - against my moral objections - because it has the longevity of over 800 years of tried and proven success. I am not sure the local manufacturers of acrylic-based gesso and pigments will warranty their products that long. I would love to talk with a polymer chemist who would convince me otherwise.

janthony0613@gmail.com

I have researched Gesso for about eight weeks, not being an artist, but a Catholic engineer with artistic inclinations.(?) I studied not organic chemistry in college, but polymer chemistry - which some would say is an overlap - but I say not. Anyhow, inorganic chemistry (the table of elements) and polymer chemistry showed me many things now that intrigue my interested in gesso. 71.218.255.101 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above description is inaccurate. Rabbit skin glue contains no fat whatsoever. It is derived from the collagen in the skin itself and is a substance akin to gelatine. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I removed the following text: "Websters says odoriferous means strong smelling, in particular, sweet smelling - perhaps the original author meant 'stinks'?)" as it is factually incorrect. odoriferous simply means odorous (according to m-w.com)... that is, giving off odor. Perhaps odoriferous should be changed to malodorous or fragrant to be more specific. I, however, prefer the usage of odoriferous as it empirically objective.

As a further note, I believe such comments belong here, in the talk page, and not as a part of the article. Efflux 20:11, 26 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

can someone tell me what is the best practice to Gesso the panel for painting?

gesso in art

I still don't understand when do you use gesso for priming, how do you use it, do you use gesso only, and where can you buy such a thing? Also how long does it take to dry. young artist

Google is your friend - look for technical manuals in online bookstores. This is an encyclopaedia (or supposed to be ...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.118.231 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce gesso? (please add to article) Abeg92 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster online uses this:

\ˈje-(ˌ)sō\

If only wikipedia would get rid of this IPA nonsense. This is the English version of wikipedia, don't you suppose that using a pronunciation key similar to those of English-language dictionaries might help folks understand it? And don't give me this hoity-toity bullshit about it not being fair to foreigners. It's the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. Seriously, it reminds me of getting a computer science degree decades ago: The academics with no hill to be king of would grab the closest pile-of-crap and declare it valuable. IPA DOESN'T HELP ANYONE but the barest sliver of people.

And NO, it's not going to help people of foreign countries, because this nonsense is gibberish to them as well. Oh, and let me guess, this will be called a senseless rant. Get your heads out of your asses wikipedia do-nothing academics.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Tgm1024! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.118.231 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers and comments

"Gesso" is pronounced "JEH-so." "JEH" like in Jerry. "So" as in so. :-)

Where to get gesso... Googling for "Easy Gesso Mix" and "real gesso" will bring up some hits for where to get real gesso. So-called acrylic gesso is available at just about every art supply store and web site.

Gesso and acylic gesso both dry very fast.

Real gesso is for panels, not canvas. Acrylic gesso is frequently used on canvas. Inexpensive pre-primed canvases are (almost?) all primed with the acrylic stuff.

Canvas has to be sealed against the oil, which will eventually rot the canvas. Yep, linseed oil (made from flax) will rot linen (made from flax). Strange but true. The sealer is called a "size."

The traditional way to prepare canvas is to size it with rabbit skin glue, to seal it against the oil, and then coat it with an oil based ground. Lead white paint, with or without chalk or whatnot is a traditional ground. Canvases prepared with lead white are best after they have dried for six months or more.

If you put enough acrylic gesso on a canvas, it will be sealed sufficiently. The question is how much is enough.

The traditional way to prepare a panel is with gesso (Italian for "chalk"), which is a mixture of glue, chalk, and frequently white pigment. Many people consider real gesso to be the gold standard of panel grounds. See comments below.

Now the comments.

Some of this entry reads like a polemic favoring acrylic "gesso." There may be better, modern alternatives to rabbit skin glue for sizing canvas, (I could not say), but acrylic gesso is by no means the only option. There's nothing here about the lingering concerns some have that the oil paint will eventually delaminate from an acrylic ground. (There are no three hundred year old paintings on acrylic gesso.) There is also no mention of two draw-backs: 1) Acrylic gesso stains immediately, making some kinds of underpainting methods impossible; 2) Acrylic gesso is hard and rough. It is next to impossible to sand. It wears on the brushes very badly.

This has now gone from a polemic favoring acrylic gesso to one against it. It is no means an established fact that oil paint will eventually delaminate from acrylic gesso. I would think it probably won't. I am removing that part.

Jive Dadson 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact I have re-added the portion about the negatives of using acrylic gesso. I have referenced "The Painter's Handbook" which mentions this. If you have been painting in oils on acrylic gesso, I pity your paintings in 100 years. When you read about the mechanism for this, it becomes quite clear why a lot of painters are going to rue their decisions--or rather the next owner of those paintings is going to reject that. Please do not remove this material, as it is based in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just did a little bit of googling on acrylic gesso delamination and I found people who had experienced the delamination. Also, this link: http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=28610 describes a conversation with a senior curator at the Smithsonian who clearly rejected acrylic gesso for oil paint and extolled the long-term virtues of Rabbit-skin glue. To quote the relevant passage:

"The main reason I switched was a conversation I had with Dr. Marion Mecklenberg of the Smithsonian. In his research on older oil paintings he found that the original canvases had lost their tensile strength and it was the RSG that was basically supporting the aged,brittle paint films. He has been acting as a consultant for various enterprises trying to develop modern sizing materials. As of our conversation of a year ago he said none of the new materials as currently constituted ( PVA sizes, acrylic fabric stiffeners, etc. ) could match the strength, and as I understood it combination of body and 'good' stiffness of RSG and so provide the support to ageing oil paint films that RSG does. He felt that the support provided by RSG was much more important than the fact that it is somewhat hygroscopic. The hope is that new stuff will come along that can match RSG's support capabilities without being hygroscopic, but evidently we're not there yet." So, folks, if you remove this information about the negative effects of using oil paint over acrylic gesso, you are distributing damaging misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Macdonald Glasgow Four

Does anyone know how Margaret Macdonald made her gesso panels?

Is it just me, or do these lines at the end of the 'Acrylic gesso' section sound more like an assault on canvas manufacturers and an advertisement for books than an encyclopedia entry?

Well, the tone of that passage is intended to counter the unsupported claims of persons who wish that acrylic gesso did not cause the delamination. I would be happy to restore that passage in a neutral form but then you will have the harpies coming to eliminate the passage. It is a pretty well known fact that the Smithsonian's curators prefer Rabbit Skin glue over acrlyic gesso to go under oil paint. If we can assume that this issue is done, then I will favor putting in non-defensive text on that point.

"Of course, manufacturers of pre-gessoed canvas will deny this delimination takes place. Unfortunately, the science is pretty clear. Please refer to "The Painter's Handbook" for details. Also, another textbook "Artist's Manual" also refers to the negative effects of using oil paint over acrylic gesso." —Preceding Curmudgeon99 comment added by 71.178.237.51 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ____ Having used both traditional (RSG and Oil Primer), Modern Variant (PVA or Acrylic size and Oil Primer), and Acrylic Gesso- as well as working for a major paint manufacturer (my point of disclaimer) I would argue that the article's last paragraph is a potential misinformation understating the issues that exist with RSG, and taking a stance against Acrylic gesso that is unproven and unsubstantiated as it applies to ALL acrylic gessos. It is hygroscopic/hydrophilic and this can be quite bad for the painting as it will promote greater swings in the expansion/contraction of the substrate if is a stretched fabric- potentially pushing the bounds of the polymerized oil emulsion's elasticity. To imply that the long term strength of RSG is greater is problematic as it requires assumptions about climatic conditions in which the paintings are stored. In addition, for RSG to be a useful ground you need to have a very lean Oil Ground with linseed oil, which in itself is giving much of the strength and elasticity to the painting. Acrylic gesso relies on the strength of the polymer chains for elasticity and strength, Calcium Carbonate for proper adhesion, and titanium dioxide for reflectiveness and brighter surface. The efficacy of an acrylic gesso requires a proper balance of vehicle/ calcium carbonate for that adhesion and film strength (as well as isolation to protect the fibers from oil) and like many things in this world, there are good ones out there and bad ones. Some have too much vehicle making them feel very "plasticy" with not enough absorption to promote adhesion. Some have vehicle that has been extended too far and wont allow for the acrylic particles in the suspension to form the long chains that create the strength of the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.205.116 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Defense of Rabbit-Skin Glue

I too have experience with RSG and oil primer and with acrylic gesso. Though it may be inconvenient for you to hear, the Smithsonian's art curators^[1] forbid the use of acrylic primer under oil painting. Despite the hydroscopic properties of RSG, its overall qualities make it--according to the Smithsonian--the best option. Surely you can cherry pick some isolated circumstance in which acrylic has advantages. But in the totality of a painting's lifespan--be that centuries or millenia--RSG and oil primer is the best. Also, aside from the show stopper of delamination (when the entire painting peels off the acrylic gesso), the limp canvases that result from acrylic gesso are much less desirable than cheaper-to-make RGS and oil primer. Curmudgeon99

References

^ [1] Smithsonian's art curators

Leatherwork

I came to this page looking for something on the use of gesso in hand tooled leatherwork, but found nothing. Room for expansion of the article by some knowledgeable person, I hope. 87.114.166.36 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrylic gesso claims

rm this revision to talk for integration because text presenting one claim should not be replaced by an opposite finding, it should be added on so both are presented. Also a commercial website article/claims (goldenpaints.com) are not WP:RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did a cleanup and tried to merge material. Source http://www.ndt.net/article/art2008/papers/166Maor.pdf and source http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/1487 is a study of oil and alkyd paints, not acrylic gesso. Ended up removing all that material and trimming back the para for WP:NOTHOWTO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delamination claims

I revised the part, which was changed by yesterday's editor. The concern of delamination of oil paints is just a concern, no more no less. There is neither evidence nor proof that oil paints delaminated because of the acrylic gesso grounds so far. If you can find just one convincing example, please quote it. The Smithsonian art conservators never advised that one should not use oil paints on acrylic-gesso grounds. On the other hand, traditional hide-glue gesso, casein, and oil grounds are not trouble free at all. They have a lot of problems, which are documented in textbooks. This is the reason why many artists prefer to paint in oils on acrylic-gesso primed canvas nowadays. So if one decides to put information on Wiki, the information should be neutral and correct. Erring on either side is not recommended because it is harmful to the community.

Wikipedia does not present "either/or" balance. It presents material based on reference (see WP:V and WP:NPOV). I have reworded accordingly and some other edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "due to an increasing miss-match in flexability" because this is just a guess. There is no proof or evidence or scientific justification for that. There is no word "flexablity" in English either.

I also changed "Several painting texts such as The Painter's Handbook note a problem with using oil paints over acrylic gesso because, unlike time-tested grounds such oil ground or rabbit skin glue, oil paint eventually delaminates from the acrylic gesso surface over time." to "Several painting texts such as The Painter's Handbook raise a concern of using oil paints over acrylic gesso, arguing that oil paint will eventually delaminate from the acrylic gesso surface over time." because there is no so-called "problem of delamination of oil paintings from acrylic gesso surface" so far. If some texts said so, they are simply wrong. There has not been any evidence or proof that oil paints delaminated because of the acrylic gesso surface. Delamination, if occurred, was caused by other reasons such as the presence of zinc white in the oil colors (See, e.g. the works by Marion Merklenburg of Smithsonian Institution), poor preparation of grounds, low quality of materials used, dirts on the surface of grounds, etc., no matter it was a traditional gesso ground, oil ground, or acrylic gesso ground. The part "unlike time-tested grounds suchh as oil ground or rabbit skin glue grounds" is also misleading because rabbit skin glue and oil grounds are known to cause cracks of painting surface as well. These are well documented in many textbooks and experienced by many artists and art conservators. If the traditional grounds were so good, artists would not have to search for new grounds such as the acrylic one and new binder such as the PVAc, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canvasd (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If some texts said so" we cite it. We don't interpret it, guess why artists used something else, or throw in our own opinions on the matter. If there are things well documented in many textbooks then that should be cite, probably in a sub-section titled "Controversy". I have reworded to cite directly what a single text said. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Canvasd (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It is technically not gesso at all[6]" stood for a long time and no one bothered. What does it mean "technically not gesso at all"?

Technically the traditional gesso consists of

1) a binder mixed with

2) chalk, that is calcium carbonate

3) pigment.

The traditional gesso is called "gesso" because in the very beginning it contained gypsum, so Italians called it "gesso", i.e. gypsum. Since gypsum was brittle and prone to cracking, it was eliminated later on, but the name "gesso" remains. So in the traditional gesso, the binder is animal glue such as rabbit skin glue (or casein glue).

The simplest recipes of traditional gesso made today are

1) Hide glue solution (such as rabbit skin glue)

2) Chalk

3) Titanium white pigment

or

1) Casein glue

2) Chalk

3) Titanium white pigment

What is acrylic gesso technically?

It is a combination of

1) an acrylic polymer medium,

2) calcium carbonate,

3) pigment,

4) and possibly other chemicals.

Comparing traditional gesso and acrylic gesso, one can see that the only difference between them is the binder, which is animal glue (or casein glue) in the traditional gesso and acrylic medium in the acrylic gesso. Both if them are water-based and both of them no longer contain gypsum.

Saying "acrylic gesso is technically not gesso at all" is just like saying "linen canvas is technically not canvas at all" because originally and technically canvas was made from hemp (cannabis), from which it got the name "canvas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canvasd (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the sentence "It is technically not gesso at all" is misleading. Therefore I removed it.

Gesso at its basic form is an absorbent chalk like ground. Acrylic gesso is a plastic and therefore incompatible with many techniques that require gesso, such as ink and water medium under-painting, egg-tempera, gold leaf base, etc. So it is correct that "acrylic gesso is technically not gesso at all". Acrylic gesso could be called similar to an oil ground, replacing an oil binder with an acrylic binder, but that is another story. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever used acrylic gesso, you would not say so. Acrylic gesso is also absorbent as the traditional gesso. It is not acrylic paints. It creates an open porous surface to accept oil paints and tempera adhered to it. It has the same components as those in traditional gesso including chalk, which is nothing but CaCO3. The only difference between the two gessoes is the binder. In the traditional gesso it is animal glue. In the acrylic gesso it is acrylic medium, as has been mentioned previously. Therefore it is incorrect to say that "acrylic gesso is technically not gesso at all". "Technically" here should be understood as how it is prepared. It is also wrong to say that acrylic gesso ground does not accept gold leaf based painting. See how to gild on acrylic gesso ground here. There are hundreds types of acrylic gesso on the market. The modern acrylic gesso such as the Holbein acryla white gesso is a complete ground for all color mediums--Canvasd (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC), no matter it is oil paints, tempera, ink, wash, water colors, or acrylic paints etc. Therefore, it is true that acrylic gesso primed ground is the most popular ground nowadays as quoted in the first line of Ref. [5]. So it is not good to try to restore what was correctly written in the previous edits. I just restored it.[reply]

The shortcoming of animal glue ground to humidity is well known. At the relative humidity of 80% hide glue lost all the ability to restrain stress. (See Fig. 54 of the paper "Determining the Acceptable Ranges of Relative Humidity And Temperature in Museums and Galleries" by Dr. M. Meckleburg of the Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute.) The oil-primed ground has a number of major shortcomings as well. Oil grounds dry slowly, cause cloudiness, yellowing and darkening of the paints overtime. Oil-primed canvas also gets brittle with age (as does oil paint) so in the long run the whole thing cracks and delaminates--Canvasd (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) from the canvas. These shortcomings were revealed in the paintings by many masters--Canvasd (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC) of the past especially where the paint layers are thick. Acrylic gesso is free from these shortcomings. It has extremely small changes with temperature (around 0.5 %) (See Fig. 57 of the above mentioned paper). At the relative humidity of 80% the free swelling strainn is only 1% at most (Fig. 58 of the same paper). The acrylic gesso has not passed 600 year time test so any speculation on its archival property is possible. The fact is that these 60 year time test has not revealed any delamination as claimed by proponents of traditional gesso and oil grounds. --Canvasd (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Ciao.[reply]

Per "ever used acrylic gesso", yes, I have used all the mediums above except for gilding. Please do not remove material referenced to (multiple) text books just because you disagree with them (see WP:V). Also do not miss-represent sources re: "Basic Gilding with Acrylic Gesso" By Madame Elizabeth de Nevell simply gives recipes for gilding and states "Modern acrylic gesso is made for priming canvases and other surfaces, but should NOT be confused as a substitute for the type of traditional gilding base", "USING XRF FOR SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN A STUDY OF DELAMINATING PAINT" is not a longevity study of Acrylic gesso, it is "an investigation into the cause of paint delaminating from the ground in some modern paintings". Claim "The 60 year time test of acrylic gesso ground has not revealed any delamination owing to such claimed miss-match so far" has no reference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Canvasd (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you change the first sentence in Ref. [5] "Acrylic gesso is the most popular ground" to "Modern 'acrylic gesso' is a widely used ground"? BTW, Ref. [5] is quoted by yourself but you have deliberately distorted the citation. I did not remove references. I removed the wrong statements, which deliberately distorted the information from the sources. So if the references are attached to these wrong statements, of course they are gone together. Be faithful to the source whenever and wherever you cite it, whether you cite it here, in your textbook, in your school essay, your master or PhD thesis. Also, the same request to you: You should not erase contributions by other editors, including references simply because you cannot refute them.--Canvasd (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Madame E. de Nevell said "Modern acrylic gesso is made for priming canvases and other surfaces, but should not be confused as a substitute for the type of traditional gilding base." This is because, as she correctly wrote, " 'Gesso' is a generic term traditionally used to describe any plaster based ground used for priming or preparing surfaces to be painted, 'Gilding Base' is also another descriptive term". In case you do not know the basic gilding techniques, there are three forms of gilding:

1) Traditional water gilding, which uses gelatin glue size

2) Oil gilding, which uses oil size

3) Acrylic gilding, which uses acrylic size

Both (1) and (3) are water-based gilding but (1) is the traditional water-based gilding, while (3) uses acrylic to size the ground.

Mme E. de Nevell does not say that modern acrylic gesso cannot be used for guiding. On the contrary, she explains precisely the recipe of gilding on acrylic gesso ground, that is (3) above, not traditional gesso ground, namely

1 part sugar water (the sticky part that allows the gold to adhere)

4 parts liquitex acrylic gesso (adds the bulk to your gesso)

5 parts liquitex gloss varnish medium (keeps the gesso together, hardening with a smooth finish)

Color to suit (red for work with gold and blue for silver)

If you want to read more about gilding on acrylic ground, see here.

This means acrylic gesso ground accepts gilding, doesn't it? Is it sufficiently clear to you?

The references by M. Mecklenburg and by Y. Maor et al. have shown that the reason of delamination claim of oil paints on acrylic gesso ground is NOT because of the acrylic gesso ground, but due to the presence of zinc oxide in oil paints. M. Mecklenburg in the same reference also studied a variety of properties of acrylic gesso, hide glue, and oil ground, which one can compare to see which one is better, which one is worse.

There has not been a discussion on longevity of acrylic gesso on this page so far. Longevity is a broad term, which includes many things such as aging, cracking, delamitation, discoloring, light permanency, etc. The discussion here has been specifically on the delamination claim of oil paints from acrylic gesso ground. This is the reason why I wrote my contribution, which you eventually erased.

I give up contributing to this page to avoid wasting my time.

Hope your paintings on rabbit skin glue ground and/or oil ground will not crack or delaminate, say, for ten years.

"Acrylic gesso is the most popular ground" to "Modern 'acrylic gesso' is a widely used ground"?... that is because of WP:PEACOCK. Is it a "popular ground" or is it just there? All we could say is its there.... everyone may hate it but can't or won't use the alternative. Per other edits... thats all part of the Wikipedia Core Content policies. You are sort of missing the point since Wikipedia is nether a textbook, a school essay, or a PhD thesis (see WP:NOT). Its an encyclopedia that simply reports things from other sources, like the ones I just restored. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling Uses

It might be useful to add something about the uses of gesso as a low-relief modeling medium. This seems to have rather fallen out of favor today, but was reasonably widespread in the past. (See, for instance, the December 1919 issue of 'School Arts' magazine, which covers the subject in depth, including two recipes for gesso.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.132.128 (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soy-based gesso

The section on soy-based gesso has been quoted and pondered on a few discussion boards, and the general consensus appears to outsiders that the section is written like an advertisement by Marshall Carbee or someone at his company. The information may all be factual, but I couldn't find reliable sources from third-parties to back up the claims.

More info on Carbee and his gesso (which will probably trip the spam filters):

Additionally, the Website where you supposedly can go to research and/or purchase this product is no longer available, and it never made it into The Internet Archives.

Excluding Carbee from search results, I find general interest in the idea of soy-based gessos. I also find many references and quotations of this Wikipedia article (and therefore assertion that the product exists, since it's in Wikipedia, it must be true). However, I cannot find any other manufacturers, nor can I find any third-party support for the claims made in the section, other than the ones related to Carbee's product and probable press releases.

If anyone can locate any other sources, that would be very helpful. If not, the article needs to be updated to somehow indicate something like alternatives, such as soy-based gesso, may be available but are not widely used. But even that innocuous claim should be substantiated. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 19:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both this section, "Soy-based gesso", and the next, "Sculpture", completely lack references. I have accordingly flagged them so that readers are aware that the claims made there are unsubstantiated. Lest anybody believe that this is just "drive-by tagging", let me state clearly that I've searched for suitable references but can find none. There was a relevant discussion on WetCanvas forum in 2010, where the consensus supports the old saw that: "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence", none of which has yet appeared. yoyo (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gesso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Acrylic "gesso" ... is technically not gesso at all"

That's only half-true, since it contains chalk and the acrylic replaces Renaissance materials with modern ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.118.231 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like saying "gasoline technically not water at all" is not true because both are liquid. Acrylic "gesso" is unusable for most applications Gesso is used for. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1] Smithsonian's art curators

[1]