*
 

*

You're beloved here too Sharon! Thanks for the links.

The Sunbrella material has a waterproofing coat, so be sure and wash that off before you start using it, including the indoor upholstery stuff.

In art supplies stores it is "universally primed," meaning acylic. I tested out the Sunbrella sailcloth a while back, and found it to be somewhat difficult to stretch than fabric, and epoxy seems to be the best thing to use for mounting it.

I did read that polyester can be not absorbent enough to accept a primer. There's something about it here from the Artist's Magazine Q & A (although it is a bit brief).

Russian Roulette Forum?
 

Sharon, I think you are taking a big chance if you're seriously considering using polyester sailcloth as a painting ground. It's one thing to reline a canvas, and a horse of another color to use it as a painting ground. Are you the same Sharon Knettell who was on a mission to find the ultimate lead primed linen not too long ago? (Fredrix Rix BTW)

I don't know what they're smoking on that new forum of yours but the advocacy of materials that have no real historical precedent is pure folly at best and totally irresponsible at worst. The same goes for using refined linseed oil as a replacement for cold pressed. Roll them dice baby!

Regardless of whatever anecdotal "scientific" evidence can be served up justifying the use of the newest art material dejour, remember that science has a long history of reversing itself. Today's savior often winds up being tomorrows goat. The ultimate test is the test of time, not simulated circumstances and conditions.

I'm not telling you which "friends" to hang out with, but the ones that hang out behind the firehouse trying to convince you that smoking is cool and not addictive, could turn out to be a very bad influence.

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.

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.

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.

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! )

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.

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.

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.

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...

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!

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 ?

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!

Richard,
I don't exclude any type of supports and think that the choice should depend of the size of the painting. Small ones could be glued to MDF or Masonite, bigger could be on cradled Birch Plywood and the large portraits could be on Honeycomb Aluminum.
I don't think that the gluing would cause a problem either, I would use a water based glue meant for flooring such as Linoleum.
Would that function?

Linda, I removed the "sticky" comment. Is there a thread or section on glues? (discussions of painting supports often wander into digressions on glues as sizing, and methods of adhering fabric to panel)

One of the plusses of this site is being able to find things!

All things old are made new . . .

Trolling for something else, I discovered this brief thread on topic, adding a couple of other voices.

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=6347

Richard,

Here are some folks talking about adhesive applications, from about 5 years ago . . .

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=1769

Thanks much, Steven!

(I realize that similar questions and discussions seem to "recycle" over time . . . that probably becomes boring for those who have already been there, done that and bought the tee-shirt. In this case, it's well to revisit the older threads, because of the reference to Studio Materials. Alas, Mike Ozog threw in the towel on that enterprise a couple of years ago.)

Sharon,
20 years ago I got a roll of unprimed polyester fabric that I primed and painted on, The paintings are perfectly straight without any bulging or sagging. I did not like the structure of it because it was like felt and rather course, but it hold the paint nicely. I think that it was primed with Acrylic gesso.

Ha ha ha ha. That ain't the only reason, Sharon, but you're right. Cotton canvas and large size both present major problems for the longevity of a support.

It is true that a number of people (gallerists and patrons) are attracted to linen only because it was the material of the "Old Masters".

The climate where you live and work (or at least, where your paintings will end up) has much to do with "permanence". In sunny, dry Spain, El Greco's (and Velasquez' Murillo's, Zurbaran's etc., etc.) canvases remained in fine condition partly because of ambient conditions.

In fact, constructing large painting supports (over 3 feet) presents enough difficulties in terms of "engineering" that it's for all practical purposes as different a problem from making up small supports (up to 30 inches) as building a house does compared to making a packing crate.

Richard and Sharon can speak to these issues way more than I, but having scientists in my extended family, I've absorbed a lot about product chemistry over the years.

Generally, the three things that will degrade artwork most over time are water, movement, and materials that are innately too alkaline or acid (not a neutral ph). Polyester eliminates a lot of these problems because, as has been said, it doesn't absorb water into the interior of the fiber, and thus doesn't move as much due to changes in humidity, and it's ph neutral I believe. There are a lot of traditional materials--paints, glues, etc.-- that were never chemically neutral/inert or crafted to be. So I'm not convinced that polyester is bad mojo just because it's man-made.

I worry a little about painting directly on it, because a polyester fiber is smooth-surfaced. A poly/ natural fiber blend might "grab" the paint a little better, but this may be just squeamishness on my part. Richard, would lightly sanding the poly before painting help any?

Also, here in the South, we get a lot of variance in humidity between seasons. I used to key the paintings tauter in the winter, but realized when summer returned, they'd get so tight they almost vibrated on the wall--it was a little scary. I imagine this extreme variance adversely affects the paint film. So I don't do it anymore, but I've noticed that my paintings around town gradually stop slacking off so much when they stay in one environment for a year or two and figure out "where they live."

Bill Whitaker advised that backing the painting with foamcore stapled to the stretchers would lessen the tautness variance, and I've found this to be true.

Sharon, thanks for the generosity in sharing your research.

Tom, can you post a photo of how you do this?

Will do ASAP

[QUOTE=Tom Edgerton]
Here's a thought re/ the conservation paper Sharon presented. The paper speaks in engineering terms of fabric strength, resilience, and the loss of strength in natural fibers over time. It would be well to remember that although linen loses strength ("only 25% of its original strength within 25 years") it approximates the strength of synthetics when new, i.e., plenty strong to take the wind-load of a ship under sail, or made into bags, clothing, etc., etc., the remaining 25% of strength is more than adequate for what's required of a painting on stretcher bars! It's the reason why canvases scores of years old still exist. QUOTE]


Richard,
Could you please give us the source of your quote? does it give the relative strength relationships vis-a-vis other materials?

I found this on JClass sail site, http://www.quantumsails.com/products...ils.asp?CID=13
The mainsails and spinnakers are nylon and the the jibs are kevlar among other state of the art materials.

No worries, Sharon! (it wasn't that great anyway!) Tom quoted (I believe) the whole reply.

Tom, I think I'm "losing it". The paper I referred to was the paper accredited to a conservation site via the internet, I thought it was in this thread, but apparently it's not. Sharon? By the way, IMO, the paper is very informative, and the information well worth considering in terms of our needs for painting supports.

By invoking the stresses of a ship under sail, I was thinking of times long past, not the present day. I believe most craft under sail have been spreading sheets of synthetic fabrics of one or another type since WWII.

Theres a company that produces a 50% cottom, 50% poliester fabric. I just ordered 5 meters to test. The price is incredibly cheap. I will let you know what is like.

Alex

Richard--

I welcome any and all misattributions that make me look smarter and more knowledgeable than I am.

Thanks for the great tip Sharon. I will read the post.

Unfortunally, i

Sharon, thank you very much for your excellent tips and information.

I really appreciate that.

Alex

AHA!
I have a piece of Alumalite as we speak. I had it cut in half by my neighbor who is building a small airplane in his garage. (It's nice to have people like this in the neighborhood.) I had thought one was supposed to rough up the Alumalite before applying an adhesive but it sounds like it's not necessary.
I wil post my results as soon as I get around to doing this. Thanks again, Sharon!

Sharon, once again i am pricking up my ears at your words.

Your mention of Dorland's wax medium had me google & buy some.
Alas - any idea how to make a "thin" layer.? Does one dilute it with something.?

This has come at an appropriate time for me as i am very dissatisfied with my retouch varnish (damar) as a finish for gallery presence. I am however happy with the damar final varnish - but who can wait.?!!

Any info regarding this would be appreciated. Perhaps it should be in a separate thread. Please feel free to move it if necessary.

thank you

tricia

Hey Sharon, have you thought about doing any of your large pastels on this polyester fabric? Steve

Could you double-check that link while you're still here? It doesn't seem to go through.

I just did a google search on Ross Merrill and the pastel subtrate issue and couldn't find it the the 5 minutes I looked. I would be interested in reading it. Personally, I don't like using pastel on hard surfaces and I don't really like that material they call pastel cloth either. I think stretching polyester would a good solution. I don't know about the archivalness of working on a cloth. I do know there is a Manet pastel drawn on primed linen at the Metropolitan Museum that looks none the worse for wear.

Somebody else to talk to, perhaps, is Jack Pardue. He's been doing pastels on what appears to be unprimed linen for years, but that's all I know about it. I've not actually seen his work "in the flesh."

I'll have to try out your method. I've never used an airbrush. Is it possible to spray the matte finish with a very fine pumice as part of the mixture?