over-painted canvas...or ?

Raúl Casanova wrote:

I wouldn't dare to argue with you in one field you are expert and I am not. I wouldn't dare to argue with native English spekers, either, and my first recomendation to moggy was to wait for a native English speaker opinion. My comment was based on reading the article you referred us to, Let me quote what it says:
"Following its purchase in 1997, the picture was ‘restored’ in the United States. The restorers took the sketchy and rapid application of paint to be damage, and filled in large swathes of the canvas, totally altering the picture’s appearance. Large passages were over-painted: the drapery was rendered flat and shapeless; the fingers became crudely defined, and the background was made uniformly flat".

Michael Wetzel wrote:

Hello everyone,
Just my two cents, but...

While the verb + preposition "to paint over" is clearly correct and standard, I have my doubts about converting it into an adjective.
Google (region: UK and even simply language: English) doesn't really like the adjective form. Grove Art Online certainly doesn't like it either (although it is very happy with "to paint over").
Maybe the grammatical form is the source of the disagreement here?

"Image X, painted over the previous image Y" or one of the million possible variations of this is probably the most natural way to express what you mean in fluent English.

So, I agree with Helen, but I think that she was led a little astray by the original question.

Sincerely,
Michael

Ioana Daia wrote:

I've read the thread with interest, one does not found so often on proz.com forum these kind of constructive discussions.
One word has come into my mind and I think it might be appropriate, though a bit precious...
Palimpsest. It's sometimes used in art descriptions, like here

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/technical-bulletin-vol-31/marjorie_wieseman2010
"While Rembrandt (like other Dutch artists) is known to have painted on previously used supports, most of these ‘palimpsests’ date from the early part of his career and of those, the majority are self portraits. Only a handful of ‘palimpsest’ paintings date from the 1650s and later."

just my 2 cents

[Edited at 2011-02-18 20:35 GMT]

Michael Wetzel wrote:

Hello Helen,
Does your term really fit the concept that the asker was looking for?

The original question was about painting entirely new paintings over existing paintings and not about reworking or restoring existing paintings. All of the sources that you provide refer to the latter concept.

If you search Google (language: English, region: UK ... van gogh + "painted over"), the first page has the BBC and several major British papers discussing a case from 2008 and using "paint over". (The first hit of the same search with "over-painted" is legitimate, the rest of the first page is a confusing jumble ranging from the sense of "not knowing when to quit" to painting over photographs.)

"Rembrandt" and "leonardo" seem to produce similar results.

In the context of an artist speaking or writing for a general audience and particularly in reference to the specific concept in question, the collocation "paint over" still seems like a significantly better solution to me than the adjective form.

Sincerely,
Michael

Helen Shiner wrote:
It is also worth noting that meat that is 'over-done' cannot be described as being 'done over' (if you want to retain the same meaning). Nor has a man who is 'over-worked' been 'worked over'.

Lingua 5B wrote:



The "over" particle changes implications in different collocations.. your examples are where "over" is not physical referring to a surface, that's why the equivalence test didn't work.