Durability of Acrylics

[Silver Brad]

I have been considering switching from oils to acrylics. I know that they have not yet been around that long but was wondering if they are considered to possibly outperform oils in longevity and durability?

[AMIEN]

I have been considering switching from oils to acrylics. I know that they have not yet been around that long but was wondering if they are considered to possibly outperform oils in longevity and durability?

Silver Brad,

The acrylic dispersion paints for artists have been around for 60 years and have evolved a great deal from their early days. They are now much more stable, and also more complicated as they contain perhaps 11 ingredients beyond the colorant content (depending on the color class -- organic, inorganic, natural, synthetic and so forth).

Now that the early work done by artists in these types of paints are beginning to show signs of age and deterioration (as do oil paints after 60 years), conservation scientists and manufacturers are beginning to learn more about them and how to treat them.

It is too soon to say, however, whether " ... they are considered to possibly outperform oils in longevity and durability ... ". No one we know would make a prediction like that.

As artists, we have confidence that if we use a quality product we will make work that is as durable as an oil paint. But caveat emptor: There is a lot of junk out there. We recommend you look for an acrylic dispersion paint that says on the label, "Conforms to ASTM D5098," the ASTM International Standard Specification for Artists' Acrylic Dispersion Paints. We have confidence in the integrity of the manufacturers who voluntarily conform with that Standard, though since conformance is voluntary (not a law), there will always be some bozo out there that claims conformity when they actually do not.

[Sarah Sands]

I have been considering switching from oils to acrylics. I know that they have not yet been around that long but was wondering if they are considered to possibly outperform oils in longevity and durability?

Hi Silver Brad -

The question you raise is complicated and as someone with a technical foot on both sides of this equation, I wanted to present a few thoughts as well.

There is an extensive amount of literature that can be cited to support either opinion, and new research coming out all the time that partisans will surely pick apart, each looking for that ever elusive definitive answer. Which of course never quite comes. Even at Golden, which has clearly been active in promoting acrylics as a durable medium, we have published or contributed to articles both highlighting its strengths, such as this overview by Frank Jones

Aspects of Longevity of Oil and Acrylic Artist Paints
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp12article1.php

as well as the full range of conservation concerns

Conservation Concerns for Acrylic Emulsion Paints: A Literature Review
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate.../jablonski.htm

Ultimately, however, I think AMIEN is right, in that no one can truly predict the future. Even the best accelerated testing can only help you compare materials and hazard some rough guesses of durability over, say, a hundred years, but even then, always with the caveat of "when applied in this manner and under these specific conditions". Conditions, as you can imagine, that are rarely representative of the 'real world'.

Taking this from another angle, while we know oil paintings can survive for 500 years, under optimal conditions and with great care and attention, would we suddenly abandon the medium if somehow a fatal flaw was uncovered that condemned all oil paintings to massive structural failure after a 1,000 years? Or for that matter, would you or I not paint a picture in one medium or another if we knew one lasted in perfect condition for 500 years and the other for 'only' 750?

In the end, oil and acrylics are both durable enough to be considered a professional material, and while each will have its particular pros and cons, I would go with the one that allows you to express your artistic vision to its fullest extent and with the least harm to your health.

[ottobooboo@yahoo.com]

I wanted to add a couple of thoughts to Ms. Sands' observations on durability:
1) Are there any studies that demonstrate how acrylic disintegrates in a landfill? This seems like a way to establish an outward limit on what time and environment can do to acrylic solids. And, 2) I understand that longevity isn't nearly as important in the short term as an artist's felt affinity for the medium he or she uses, but I would like to point out that a paint made primarily of mastic or damar resin and pigment was in used during the Middle Ages. We don't have any of these paintings because the material was not sufficiently permanent. Had these artist known that their work would only survive a few hundred years, they might have thought differently about using resins as the vehicle in their paints.

On a related art history note: Has anyone here ever wondered why we primarily have egg paintings and murals as survivals of painting from the Middle Ages?

[AMIEN]

Hi Silver Brad -

The question you raise is complicated and as someone with a technical foot on both sides of this equation, I wanted to present a few thoughts as well.

There is an extensive amount of literature that can be cited to support either opinion, and new research coming out all the time that partisans will surely pick apart, each looking for that ever elusive definitive answer. Which of course never quite comes. Even at Golden, which has clearly been active in promoting acrylics as a durable medium, we have published or contributed to articles both highlighting its strengths, such as this overview by Frank Jones

Aspects of Longevity of Oil and Acrylic Artist Paints
http://www.goldenpaints.com/justpaint/jp12article1.php

as well as the full range of conservation concerns

Conservation Concerns for Acrylic Emulsion Paints: A Literature Review
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tate.../jablonski.htm

Ultimately, however, I think AMIEN is right, in that no one can truly predict the future. Even the best accelerated testing can only help you compare materials and hazard some rough guesses of durability over, say, a hundred years, but even then, always with the caveat of "when applied in this manner and under these specific conditions". Conditions, as you can imagine, that are rarely representative of the 'real world'.

Taking this from another angle, while we know oil paintings can survive for 500 years, under optimal conditions and with great care and attention, would we suddenly abandon the medium if somehow a fatal flaw was uncovered that condemned all oil paintings to massive structural failure after a 1,000 years? Or for that matter, would you or I not paint a picture in one medium or another if we knew one lasted in perfect condition for 500 years and the other for 'only' 750?

In the end, oil and acrylics are both durable enough to be considered a professional material, and while each will have its particular pros and cons, I would go with the one that allows you to express your artistic vision to its fullest extent and with the least harm to your health.

Sarah Sands,

This is excellent, as usual!

[AMIEN]

I wanted to add a couple of thoughts to Ms. Sands' observations on durability:
1) Are there any studies that demonstrate how acrylic disintegrates in a landfill? This seems like a way to establish an outward limit on what time and environment can do to acrylic solids.
No "studies" that we know of, but we consider all the solids from the acrylic dispersion paints -- the colorants -- to be hazardous waste and do not recommend they be sent out with the garbage. The Golden website has a procedure anyone can use for separating colorants from wash water, and we recommend saving all used paint and palette scrapings in a separate container. This can be take to a household hazardous waste collection point. Soon, there will be a new ASTM Standard that explains this.

And, 2) I understand that longevity isn't nearly as important in the short term as an artist's felt affinity for the medium he or she uses, but I would like to point out that a paint made primarily of mastic or damar resin and pigment was in used during the Middle Ages. We don't have any of these paintings because the material was not sufficiently permanent. We have some of these paintings because they have been taken care of -- but they are in tough shape. Had these artist known that their work would only survive a few hundred years, they might have thought differently about using resins as the vehicle in their paints. True, they might have thought about that, but we bet artists then were like artists now: scraping to make a living and using any material at hand to make the art.

On a related art history note: Has anyone here ever wondered why we primarily have egg paintings and murals as survivals of painting from the Middle Ages?
No wonder here: These paintings, by and large, were preserved as best they could be by their owners. Even so, a lot of the paintings -- including those in museums -- are in bad shape: faded colors, changed colors, cracks, and so on. Until it was cleaned 20 years ago, the Sistine Chapel murals looked like they were painted with chocolate.

ottobooboo,

Our commentary is inserted above.