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

[Steven Sweeney]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but as I read through these posts, it occurred to me that no one has ever issued an environmental warning about filling up landfills with linen, on the basis that it will take hundreds of years to break down. That kind of caution is usually attached to polymer products.

I began using Fredrix PolyFlax years ago -- and still do for landscapes and still lifes -- partly as a matter of economy and partly because I didn't have any reason to go with linen. I like it very much. It's a little harder to get a good stretch on than cotton, but not nearly so hard as linen. And when it's stretched, it's stretched -- I've never had a problem with a polyflax painting "sagging" or wrinkling in the extremes of Minnesota's arid-to-humid climate. All but one of the linen pieces I've done over the years show some of this, at least to a critical eye, even though they were absolutely drum tight after stretching. (Interestingly, the one that has remained drum tight is of an unknown brand of primed linen, of uncertain pedigree or process, that I purchased in a tiny art supply store in Taiwan.)

By the way, I do use linen on all commissions, albeit partly just because of the snob factor. I can hold up the unprimed side and sniff its distinctive aroma and get all heavy-lidded and light-headed as if it were the Muse's own scent, come back to me from the mists of a former tryst. Right. I can tell clients that the stuff will last hundreds of years, even though I haven't the faintest idea whether it will, nor does anyone else. I can't quite shake the feeling that a lot -- almost all, likely -- of the two- to four-hundred year old paintings executed on non-polymer substrates didn't make it to our times. Of those that we do have, most have been subjected to the most sophisticated conservation techniques in history. And yet many are in such terrible condition, that I sometimes wish I'd never seen the original of some of them.

And yes, I know this is all anecdotal. As I said, no dog.

[Marvin Mattelson]

I recommend Ultrasmooth to my students because of the price, period. Personally I don't like painting on it myself. It's way too absorbent, even after two additional gesso coats. And it buckles.

I can't express in words how much I dislike the Artfix canvas. I threw out a portrait I had been working on for three months because the paint just kept sliding around. This is no exaggeration, BTW. THREE MONTHS!!! I also don't like the Claessens either. They are both alkyd primed, not lead primed because of the laws in Europe. You couldn't pay me enough money to paint on them.

Conversely, I love the Rix. My favorite canvas ever and the one that marks the end of my search. Once I try something and it works I stick with it. I painted Cardinal Egan on it. That went pretty well for me. Once I achieve the results I'm striving for, I'm a very loyal guy.

Personally I don't think that most of the old masters did much if any random experimentation. The ones who experimented don't have work that still exists! DaVinci, unfortunately, experimented and as a result the Last Supper was deteriorating almost immediately upon application. Maybe he painted it on polyester sailcloth!?!?

Do you consider it pertinent scientifically, as it relates to painting, that awning cloth lasts twenty years? Are you planning on hanging your paintings outdoors in the sun. The same goes for linen holding up in landfills. Gonna bury your work for future archaeologists to unearth?Paintings are designed for different uses. Paintings need a substrate appropriate for hanging indoors and the paint needs to bond with the ground both mechanically and chemically. This happens with lead white painted on a lead ground on linen, the reason given for the longevity of 17th Century (and earlier) work.

The process of painting on cave walls evolved over the course of tens of thousands of years and eventually become oil painting on linen. People tried new things along the way and if the results were eventually found out to be inferior, they were dropped. I don't take this to be a viable rational for trying to paint on every new material that industry creates. Who wants to be the Guinna Pig? Not me! That's all I'm saying. I have a responsibility to my patrons. There are no guarantees, save for the test of time.

We are all free to do whatever we wish (as long as we don't harm others, of course). I am very happy with the results I achieve and feel quite confident that my materials will insure the archival viability of my art.

[Gary Hoff]

Hi, Sharon.

I don't use polyester myself (no dog in this hunt, either) but I'm intensely curious to know how it works out for you.

It's odd, these days, with all of the new materials available in manufacturing, that so many artists stick with the old stuff. I mean, top quality synthetic brushes are a good example. They have good ability to make a chisel edge, they hold a goodly amount of paint, they have nice springiness, and they clean up easily. But we artists continue to use hog bristle--I mean, hey, they used 'em 150 years ago didn't they, and they made good paintings.

Nothing wrong with trying new things, but imo there's it's silly to dismiss them out of hand without experience.

[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.