Polyester or linen, what is the most archival surface to paint on?

[Richard Bingham]

Polyester is dimensionally extremely stable. This is because as a material, it has a very low rate of expansion/contraction due to ambient temperature changes, and unlike natural fibers, does not absorb and release ambient humidity in any significant amount. Movement due to ambient change is usually pointed to as one of the "usual suspects" when paint films fail.

That said, I haven't tried it, but if I did, I'd want to test how it accepts paint.

When all is said and done, Marvin is 100% correct to state that the materials and processes of oil painting were perfected well over 300 years ago. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The truth about archival permanence is that all oil paintings will look pretty shabby within their first 100 years, and require at least some attention from a conservator to keep on looking good. There really is no compelling reason to fix what ain't broke. In fact, a more pressing problem is to have some assurance that we're doing at least as well, by 17th century standards!

There is another aspect to materials (new or traditional) that Gary alludes to, and that's the ambience of newfangled synthetics vs. the ol' "tried 'n' true". Gary likes synthetic brushes . . . I can't abide 'em, and it's not because I have any axe to grind vis a vis environmental or scientific arguments. I just plain don't like how they feel or handle. I feel the same way about plastic brush handles, and these late "comfort grip" offerings with the gob of soft rubbery stuff near the ferrule, so you can rest your tired li'l finners while you monkey-grip the brush at a point where it should never be held . . . but hey! That's progress! (and you can't fight progress! )

[Marvin Mattelson]

Sharon, polyester today, mylar tomorrow and neoprene the next day.

Gary there is a huge difference between the chemestry of the materials and integrity of the bond and what we use to put them there with. I happen to use and love Silver Ruby Satin Brushes. They are fantastic, handling both like sables and bristles depending on how you use them. They are so good they're addictive. My students absolutely love them.

Richard, if it ain't broke don't fix it works well for me.

[Gary Hoff]

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

...Gary there is a huge difference between the chemestry of the materials and integrity of the bond and what we use to put them there with. I happen to use and love Silver Ruby Satin Brushes. They are fantastic, handling both like sables and bristles depending on how you use them. They are so good they're addictive. My students absolutely them....

I love them too. But I think you're missing the point. My comment wasn't simplu about the brushes, but about the general mindset most artists have about materials--always use the traditional--rather than experimenting with new materials and technologies.

While I agree that if it isn't broken it doesn't need to be fixed, I'd also say that healthy curiosity is what got artists from egg tempera on panels to oil paint on fabric. So why not at least try new things, even if it's just for study? Seems a no-brainer to me.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Gary, I understood your point exactly. Experimentation is fine, but what if through your experimentation you discover that you like the way the paint handles when you add chicken fat. You then decide to incorporate this new medium into your work-flow and in ten years your paintings start turning green and peeling off of the canvas. Would you have used this medium if you had known the outcome? The only way to truly avoid this kind of situation is to use time tested materials and methodologies.

I question the viability of experimentation when there is no way to predict whether or not the end result would prove disastrous down the line. That's the point I've been trying to make.

[Gary Hoff]

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

Gary, I understood your point exactly. Experimentation is fine, but what if through your experimentation you discover that you like the way the paint handles when you add chicken fat...I question the viability of experimentation when there is no way to predict whether or not the end result would prove disastrous down the line. That's the point I've been trying to make.

Well, then we understand each other well. But I'd point out that there are definitely ways to predict how many materials work and will age. Materials scientists work on this stuff all the time. While artists aren't materials scientists, most that I know are pretty bright. Yes, there are people who have used absurd or outre materials--I'm reminded that somebody in the 1950s used mayonnaise with oils--but the craftspeople, the ones who strive for not only quality paintings but solid, well-constructed works (like most here) aren't likely to immediately incorporate something weird into their materials list.

I guess it's the difference between a curious mind and an accepting one...

[Marvin Mattelson]

I didn't feel that I was in any way demeaning anyone whose desire is to experiment. If that's the way it came across I humbly apologize to any person or persons who took offense at my statements. I thought I was simply responding to people's responses regarding the points I was making. I had, perhaps erroneously, assumed that when people quote my statements they are looking to engage me in some sort of back-and-forth dialog. In the grand scheme of things, my opinions, regardless of their intrinsic magnificence and importance to me, are like minuscule tiny little grains of sands, and should be considered as such by all others.

Sharon if you, Dr. Frankenstein or anyone else for that matter, desires to experiment and are looking for my blessing, you have it. Go forth and experiment! May the spirit be with you all.

All I'm trying to say, and I absolutely guarantee that this will be the last time I'm saying it, is that there may be long term ramifications to your actions and these should be considered.

Regarding polyester, the powder blue polyester leisure suits from the early 1970's have not held up too well, at all. Note: I'm proud to say that I never wore one, opting for more traditional fabrics and styles instead!

As far as the viability of acrylics go, they have been used by artists for about 60 years, as well. Get back to me in another three hundred and maybe I'll consider a switch back. I had previously used acrylics when I first started painting, back in the day, and when I eventually switched to oils, I found them to be far more satisfying and much quicker to boot. Below I'm posting an example of my acrylic work from about 15 years ago when I was working as an illustrator.

As far as this thread is concerned, I feel my work here is done. Sancho Panchez and I have an appointment with a windmill down the block, and we're already way behind schedule.

Adios!

[Allan Rahbek]

After reading that Tate site it seams that the main problem with linen support is the flexibility of it.
Oil paints are, after curing for several years, rigid and will respond to pressure by cracking.
If the linen is supported by a stiff support such as Masonite or MDF it would not be possible to deform the paint film and course cracking of it as the result.
Many likes the give of linen when painting, and so do I, so the mounting of a stiff support could be an option after finishing the painting. Gluing to the support is the optimal solution.
What do you think ?

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Allan Rahbek

. . . seems . . . the main problem with linen is . . . flexibility . . . Oil paints are, after . . . several years, rigid and . . .respond to pressure by cracking. If . . . supported by Masonite or MDF it would not . . . deform . . .

The long and the short of it is that weight is a consideration for large panels. In fact, stretching canvas over light-weight chassis is the solution. As for materials, fiberboards (including masonite and MDF) lack the structural integrity of natural wood, and deform of their own weight. Applying canvas over such panels doesn't eliminate the problem of movment of the supports under brittle paint films. New-fangled panels such as cellular resin-core aluminum laminates are quite durable, light and rigid, but the problem of adhering the canvas remains, with the attendant criticism that these materials and processes have not stood the test of time as traditional materials and methods have.

The hand-wringing over these details is certainly a major problem for those artists painting today whose work is assured of being timelessly important and treasured in the next century and beyond. Perhaps they should work in buon fresco? Oh! what if the plaster cracks, or the walls behind it crumble? Heavens! The agonies of worry!