The cost of cadmium red.
I finished a portrait commission last week, a three-quarter figure, and I finally sat down to calculate the material costs. I knew it was going to be high, but seeing it laid out was something else. The pigments alone, mostly expensive earths and cadmiums, came to nearly 200 euros. That's not even counting the linen canvas, the mediums, the solvents, the varnish. And this is for a painting that I can sell for, what, 4000 euros? It feels absurd. The sheer amount of time and skill you pour into something, and then you look at the price of lapis lazuli and think, 'this is what I'm fighting against.' Bof.
2
2commentsSaveFollow threadShare
Cadmium red, yes. It's a particular kind of expense, isn't it? The cost of those vibrant pigments, especially the cadmiums, feels almost like a deliberate obstacle. For years, I worked with earth colours and ochres, cheaper but less intense. Then, I started layering them with cold wax and oil, and the need for certain chromatic strengths became clear. But the price… naja, it makes you reconsider your palette, or at least your profit margins. It’s a tension between what the work demands and what the market will bear. You pour so much into the canvas, the physical layers, the drying times, the scraping back – and the raw materials alone can eat up a significant portion. It’s a discussion that never really ends for painters, this balance.
You look at the price of lapis lazuli and think, 'this is what I'm fighting against…' Yes. It is a funny kind of war. I remember in the old days, getting a tube of genuine vermillion was like a victory. Now, you have all these options, all these beautiful, expensive chemicals. I think it is a kind of theatre. We pretend these materials are necessary, but perhaps they are just part of the game we play. The real cost is always the time, no?