MITRA Forum Question Details

If possible, I would just sand or scrape it off before priming over. Especially if you haven't started painting yet, why not just eliminate any possible problems? House paint is​ formulated for a different type of performance, to a different standard of durability than artists' colors. That doesn't make it inferior, just not always well suited for permanent art. It could be fine, but there may be components of the enamel paint that could affect the painting as it ages.

Hardware/architectural paints often include additives that are not used or tested in the art materials industry. The polymer base might not be 100% acrylic- it could be styrenated acrylic copolymer, which can be prone to yellowing. Special coalescents may be included so paint can be applied outdoors in cooler temperatures, plasticizers may be present, and it may be formulated to shed particles for a "self cleaning" feature. These are desirable in a paint with an expected 25-year useful life, but not in artists' colors.

​Yes I concur with Matthew's statement. This is also why we included similar info (No. 13) in our "Myths" document that can be found in the resources section here.

​I think being on a panel you will be fine. Can someone always imagine a 'perfect storm' scenario - probably - but then you can get perfect storms even when using only artists materials. Here I think the risks are truly miniscule. That said, going forward, keeping the commercial housepaints off of the front would probably be prudent.

This probably warrants a thread of its own at some point, but would be good to broach the topic that while we often see caveats along the lines of "commercial paints not being made to the same standards as artist materials", and give those caveats ourselves, the actual truth of the mater is somewhat worse - on the art side. I actually think few artist materials are probably tested as rigorously as high-quality commercial ones, especially when talking about acrylic grounds which have over the years, for many if not most manufacturers, been in a race to the bottom in terms of price and hence quality. Some commercial paint systems do extremely well in tests we have done, and many conform to far more rigorous ASTM test standards than those for the art materials industry. Obviously there are many commercial products that don't do great - but the same is true on the art material side. At least in our testing.

I just worry that we project a picture of art material companies doing rigorous testing to make sure their materials are extremely durable, when I think the reality is that just a small handful of ones do much testing at all. I wish that was different but I will also say that very few manufacturers of artist materials even attend ASTM meetings anymore, which is a sign that there is no broad interest or deep commitment among artist material manufacturers to work on rigorous and scientifically vetted quality standards so that we CAN reassure artists that their materials are durable and appropriate for permanent works of art. Until that changes, I fear we are slipping slowly back to the wild west in terms of quality and even lightfastness of what is being offered in art stores.

Anyway, it's a complicated situation.