It [seems|appears} that after expending so much for a piece of art such as a watercolor, for examplea lot of people just stop considering what is appropriate for it right afterwards, other than hanging it in the hall. Hanging and art lighting the art with picture frame lights turns out to be the end of the venture and nothing more is there but to gaze the painting. It may not be incorrect, but such is certainly incomplete, in that with the wrong lighting method, the painting will not last as it should, nor show itself in the best, well, light. All art lights are hardly equal.

Natural light?

Nature-produced light —sunshine- is the best for vision, but not all the time for paintings and other [works|pieces} of art. First, natural light is complicated to manage. It can be brilliant one hour and cloudy the next, according to the movements of the skies. For another, its ultraviolet and infrared rays can do considerable damage to artworks, particularly watercolors, pastels and photos, and fabrics. The ultraviolet rays fade the hues in a short time, quicker with unhindered sunlight, called bleaching which all of us are familiar with. It is hence not good for all art.

Radiant light?

It has its positives and negatives as well. Incandescent lights or those with filaments that give off the light augment the hot tones yellow, orange, brown and red, but [renders|makes} the cooler hues rather dull. If the paintings or artworks are predominantly warm in color combinations, incandescent light might be suitable. Another negative is its greater levels of heat radiation contrasted with other lighting methods because of the burning filament. The heat will, comparatively sooner than later, damage the artwork.

What about fluorescent lighting?

Fluorescents produce light by making phosphors within a glass tube glimmer with ultraviolet radiation from an inert gas plus some vaporized mercury that are ionized with electricity. Because it is ultraviolet intensity that makes the initial power, fluorescent lighting promotes the cooler tones of the color spectrum: the blues and violets and greens, thus suppressing the other tones in contrast. Fluorescents understandably also radiate high amounts of ultraviolet light which can damage paintings much like sunlight. Finally, it does not emit all colors of the light band, so that sets a different problem for the display.

Is halogen lighting the most appropriate?

Halogen lighting is simply a variation of incandescent lighting and uses halogen gas to make the tungsten vapor of the filament adhere back to the filament, extending lamp usability. The action however requires higher heat amounts, so a halogen lamp is comparatively hotter than other light producers. This can damage the art by drying the paint and making it splinter, so museums use movement detectors to switch lights off and on as needed.

So what is over-all most apt?

Until lately, light emitting diodes (LED) give off light only in primary tones. Chinese scientists a few years ago combined blue and yellow in the right amounts to generate white, and white LEDs created a phenomenal explosion of applications, including illuminating art pieces. It is white, low voltage, has long life, no heat and ray emissions to damage art, and is inexpensive. It being new, it is not as yet prevalent and still unproven over time. Nevertheless, it seems to be the most suited system for everyone and everything.