There are my own paintings done in 100% acrylic nearly 30 years ago &
unchanged. That of course is not much time as compared, say, to 5000 BC
but it suggests that lethal effects are not imminent. A dilution of
1/12th would cut that way down, to pick a figure not quite arbitrarily
I would dare say it suggests archivalness for 12 times 30 or 360
years. I won't worry about year 361, especially if it lets me make
more beautiful prints today.
That said, I must add that I tried acrylic baths on gum prints and nothing
weaker than full-strength gloss medium did much, or gave anything like the
glorious shine of the wet print.(And needless to say full strength gloss
medium on a gum print is hideous -- I'm just talking about visible
enriching of the darks.) The flattening, or dulling effect of drying is an
ongoing hazard, though sometimes I remember to make the print too
saturated, & then maybe it dries OK, tho sometimes it just dries too
saturated......
Whoever it was last year, from England as I recall, said his pl/pd prints
gained richness from a 1 to 12 bath, & I say good for him!
> My sources, above, were the proceedings of an
> international conference that took place a couple of years ago on the
> preservation and conservation of plastic materials. These were scientific
> papers reporting the results of closely monitored empirical studies. They
I haven't seen that info, though I've learned in my old age to be
skeptical of anything I haven't "proved" myself & then I'm wrong at
least 50%. I've sure watched a lot of "science" go poof, as have you.
In this case, however, I do know that Goldin of Golden acrylics disputes
it. The deteriorations cited were, he says, due to the paper or other
support. Of course that's self-serving on his part, but if we're talking
about artist's materials you can't just say "acrylic does thus & such" in
the abstract, but must compare with other, more traditional varnishes and
drying oils used in "fine art," all of which age.
And let us note in passing that a lot of linen and rag covered with
acrylic is being purchased in the high 7 figures by a lot of collectors &
museums -- and that's 100%, not 1/12th!
Which brings me to the point that archivality somehow seems to be either
ignored entirely (as in the Iris prints you cite) or carried to excess,
as I believe photographers tend to do. (Maybe it's to compensate for
using machines, or making prints or.......?) Anyway, it's one thing
if the work is going to die by sundown, another if in 100 years it will
have color changes, or edge deterioration.
In fact I find the effects of aging in a photograph USUALLY enhance its
charms (though not fading, can't stand fading). Don't we try to imitate
the plating out of silver shadows in old prints, the iridescence of
daguerrotypes, the spots, specks and blobs that time bestows?
.
> Although unusual effects can be obtained with Polaroid transfers, I'd never
> pay a dollar for one. I'd never pay a buck for a lot of things indeed. This
> is not to say easy and instant processes should not be used as learning
> tools. In art schools students use the cheapest paints and papers they can
> get they their hands on. They are just learning and 95% of what you produce
> while learning is expected to end in the trash can, so who cares. It should
> be the same with photographic processes.
Well I do think there's a difference between learning, say gum printing,
with cheap paint (some of which is perfectly archival) & paper (which may
also be OK) because you're learning a process, and "learning" with
Polaroid transfer, with which you "learn" that there's a free lunch...the
illusion of doing it yourself (which you don't have with computer
printers), in something that's to my mind more like a party game. I got a
terrific kick out of it too, I freely admit, but I think of it more as party
game than learning tool.
My point was, and I think I'll stick with it, that if you went on a
rampage about the acrylic you might at least have said boo about the
Polaroid (tho better late than never). ( ;->)
Cheers,
Judy