3 Different Types Of Acrylic Paint

Tratto da EduEDA
Versione del 21 Mar 2015 alle 17:27 di Mistspike59 (Discussione | contributi) (Creata pagina con "You can use different mediums to make standard acrylics thinner, but when you do this, the paint loses its pigmentation, so the colours don't come out as well. Fluid acrylics ...")

(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

You can use different mediums to make standard acrylics thinner, but when you do this, the paint loses its pigmentation, so the colours don't come out as well. Fluid acrylics retain the same concentration of pigmentation as standard acrylics, so you can work with paint that's a lot thinner without having to worrying about the colours it's going to produce. With fluid acrylics, you can employ a lot of oil and watercolour techniques much more easily than if you were using standard acrylics. This type of acrylic paint is also good for glazes and washes. Fluid acrylics are great for artists who care about the finer details of their work.


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Making art because you love art is the most important aspect to maintain a flow of satisfaction in the river of creativity. Is that personal enjoyment that allow artists to keep trying, exploring, expressing, and perfecting. We want to love what we do. We want to get better at it. We want to improve our technique and explore other ways to bring our ideas to life. We want art to be our vehicle of expression. That inner examination of our thoughts and emotions is what keeps our art alive. We want to make a living out of art as well. It is a goal to live out of what we love to do. All of the above are legitimate and totally justified reasons with value on their own. Is there anything more or anything else that our art can accomplish beyond ourselves? Or is art all about ourselves as artists?


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In our world today, a lot of people have been moving towards the belief that there is no such thing as sin. If we come to think of it, it would be good to have a world that does not have sin but this kind of world can only exist ideally.

Sin is present and the mere existence of sin is an existential proof that we, humans are imperfect beings. It is for the same reason that the Roman Catholic church acknowledges the existence of sin and has even classified sin into either being venial or mortal.

However, one might ask, what is the proof of the Catholic doctrine on sin and its existence? During the medieval age, two distinct Christian, or should I say Catholic philosophers has dwelt on the discussion of sin in their philosophical treatise or works. These two philosophers are St. So how does these two philosophers define sin? St. Augustine defines sin as a particular form of evil for which one person is responsible. St. Augustine further states that as we move away from the perfection of God, we become imperfect and therefore, our imperfection causes us to sin.

On the other hand, St. Thomas Aquinas defines sin as something that is contrary to reason. However, if we are to base it from this rational definition, there would be a lot of things that would be contrary to reason so Thomas further elaborates by quoting St. Augustine stating that sin is an act which is contrary to eternal law.

What then is the eternal law? According to the Summa Theologiae, when God created the universe, He also created a set of laws that govern it. museum