The authors also do not review the incredible developments that have taken place with organic and inorganic pigments, although good accounts by de Keijzer and Marontate, for instance, already exist. Naturally, a broader understanding of the subject would be possible from surveying material written in other languages, in particular German texts by Röhm, who first reported the production of a solid acrylic polymer in 1901 and developed a commercial synthesis of acrylate esters in 1927. It should be stressed that this review only takes into account publications in the English language. The intent in this paper is to review the majority of available information from the conservation literature and to encourage further discussion and research by conservators, conservation scientists, paint manufacturers and artists. Instead, concerns tend to be communicated through informal discussion. In general, very few studies of the conservation of acrylic emulsion paintings have been published. Since remedial treatment is so difficult with acrylic paintings, preventive conservation is crucial.

Even small damages can therefore soon become ‘unacceptable’. The third was that damage may be especially noticeable in colour field or monochromatic paintings, disrupting the delicate surface texture, colour or gloss, 9 10 11Īll of which are often integral to the artists’ intent and can be altered by even the slightest contact. The second was the complete lack of knowledge about acrylic emulsion systems, especially the complexity and constant changes to the formulas, with insufficient information coming from the manufacturers of both raw materials and artists’ paints.

The first was that most conservation treatments had been designed for traditional paintings in oil and were found unsuitable for acrylic emulsion paintings, due in particular to the high sensitivity of these synthetic paints to the majority of organic solvents and heat. 6 7 8Įssentially, three fundamental problems were identified. Similar themes were discussed in the following decades. Within the conservation profession, concerns were soon raised as some of these newly painted works began to require cleaning and repair. In spite of their outstanding mechanical and aging properties, acrylic emulsion paintings do suffer damage, often through external influences. 2 Helen Frankenthaler, who switched from using oil paints to acrylic emulsions in the early 1960s, said: It seemed exciting in the way people got excited about the use of plastics, aluminium and other industrial materials’. They talked about the radiance of and the fluidity of it and that it would never yellow. John Hoyland recalled, ‘I remember reading articles in magazines. These synthetic paints produced films of great clarity and phenomenal elasticity, were easy to manipulate, could be painted directly onto supports, dried quickly, were thinned with water and exhibited high resistance to ultraviolet degradation. released new kinds of tactile qualities’. As Kenneth Noland described it, ‘there was an urge to loosen painting.

They embodied the characteristics that many artists had been searching for at that time, affording a means of expression that was distinct from oil painting and its associated history and traditions. Acrylic emulsion artists’ paints were received with much fanfare and excitement in the 1950s and 1960s.