|
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! )
|