Searching the Grounds: A Historical and Technical Comparison between Acrylic and Oil Grounds for Oil Painters
The preparation of a painting surface has always been one of the most critical steps in creating durable and responsive works of art. In oil painting, the ground serves not only as a visual foundation but also as a physical mediator between the support and the paint film. Two major categories dominate modern practice: oil grounds, which have been used for centuries, and acrylic dispersion grounds, a mid-twentieth-century invention often sold under the name “acrylic gesso.” Both are widely used as substrates for oil paint today, yet their composition, adhesion properties, and long-term behavior differ in important ways.
Oil grounds emerged during the Renaissance alongside the widespread adoption of drying oils as painting media. Earlier supports were often covered with glue-chalk gessoes, which were well suited for egg tempera but too brittle and absorbent for oils. By mixing lead white (basic lead carbonate) with linseed oil, artisans created a semi-absorbent priming that cured into a tough, durable film. Applied over a glue size, these oil grounds provided a smooth surface that minimized oil penetration into canvas or wood and maximized the handling qualities of oil paints. Their proven stability is visible in countless surviving paintings from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries. For centuries, oil paint applied to oil grounds was the unquestioned norm, with lead white providing both opacity and remarkable chemical resilience.
By contrast, acrylic dispersion grounds belong entirely to the modern period. The invention of acrylic polymers in the 1930s and their commercialization in the 1940s led manufacturers in the 1960s to introduce waterborne “gesso” made of acrylic resin, titanium dioxide, and calcium carbonate. This new ground dried quickly, cleaned up with water, and did not require glue sizing. Marketed as universally compatible, acrylic dispersion grounds quickly became the default option for students and many contemporary artists. Oil paint could indeed be applied over them, but unlike oil grounds, these primers offered no chemical compatibility with oil layers. The bond was purely mechanical, relying on oil seeping into the porous acrylic surface.
The distinction between chemical adhesion and mechanical adhesion is key. When oil paint is applied over a fresh oil ground, it can form a true chemical bond: both layers are undergoing oxidative polymerization, and the new paint can partially cross-link with the ground beneath. This provides an additional adhesion pathway compared to systems that rely only on mechanical bonding, and may help explain the long-term reliability of oil-on-oil priming systems. However, as oil grounds age, their surface quickly develops a cross-linked “skin” that exhausts most of its reactive groups. After a few months, new oil paint no longer integrates chemically but adheres only by mechanical keying to the ground’s surface texture. Thus, even though oil grounds have centuries of proven success, the advantage of chemical bonding is strongest only during the early period after application. An aged oil ground is still a superior foundation because it remains chemically compatible and dimensionally similar to oil paint, but the adhesion is primarily mechanical rather than chemical once the surface has matured. Research by Mecklenburg, Tumosa, and Erhardt at the Smithsonian has further documented how oil paint films change mechanically as they cure and age. Their studies demonstrate that fresh oil layers are more capable of interpenetration, while aged films become increasingly brittle and rely more on surface tooth for adhesion. While these investigations did not provide direct quantitative comparisons of adhesion between oil–oil and oil–acrylic bilayers, they establish a critical context: opportunities for interlayer bonding are greater when oil layers cure together than when adhesion depends solely on mechanical keying.
Acrylic dispersion grounds, on the other hand, have never offered chemical adhesion to oil paint. Their bond with oil is purely mechanical from the outset. The porous, chalk-filled surface allows oil to sink in, creating an interlock that holds well in the short term. But long-term studies in conservation laboratories have raised some concerns. Acrylic films remain flexible and thermoplastic indefinitely, while oil films harden and become brittle with age. This mismatch has been associated with internal stresses that, under certain conditions, can contribute to cracking or delamination. Furthermore, acrylic dispersions are permeable: moisture, solvents, and acidic byproducts from supports such as wood or hardboard can migrate through them over time, potentially compromising the stability of the oil paint film.
While oil and acrylic dispersion grounds differ greatly in their chemistry and adhesion behavior, their ultimate stability is also shaped by the supports they cover and the sealants or sizing layers applied beneath them. Grounds do not exist in isolation; they are part of a layered system in which the support, size, ground, and paint interact over time. The preparation of this system has historically been as important as the chemistry of the ground itself.
Traditional oil painters working on canvas used animal glue size beneath oil grounds. This layer reduced the raw canvas’s absorbency, preventing oil from penetrating into the fibers where it could cause embrittlement and darkening. On wood panels, artisans often sealed the surface with glue, parchment, or resin before applying a ground. These sealants blocked tannins, lignin, and other acidic components from migrating upward into the ground and paint layers. In both cases, the size created a barrier that preserved the structural integrity of the support and provided a proper foundation for the ground.
In modern practice, when artists turn to acrylic dispersion grounds, the importance of an isolating sealant becomes even more pronounced. Acrylic films, unlike oil grounds, remain semi-permeable, allowing moisture, solvents, and acidic byproducts to pass through over time. On acidic supports such as Masonite, MDF, or birch plywood, this permeability can result in staining, discoloration, or eventual weakening of the paint film. For this reason, conservators recommend sealing wooden supports with stable materials such as dewaxed shellac, PVA size, or epoxy before applying either oil or acrylic grounds. On canvas, acrylic dispersion grounds are often used without sizing, but long-term stability may be enhanced by an isolating layer to prevent excessive oil absorption into the fibers.
Oil grounds, being less permeable and more chemically compatible with oil paint, are somewhat less vulnerable to acidic migration, but they too benefit from proper sealing beneath. A glue or resin size beneath an oil ground on canvas reduces sinking and extends durability, while a sealed wood panel helps prevent discoloration and warping. The historical record is clear: the most enduring works on oil grounds are those in which the support and sealant were chosen with equal care.
In short, the choice between oil and acrylic grounds cannot be prouctively considered independently of the support–sealant–ground system. Thus, the behavior of grounds is shaped not only by their inherent chemistry but also by the way artists prepare and isolate the supports that lie beneath them.
From the artist’s standpoint, the handling qualities reinforce these differences. Oil grounds present a relatively closed surface: oil paint tends to sit on top, retaining increased saturation and allowing for longer “working” times. Painters often describe oil-primed supports as smoother, slicker, and sometimes more “slippery.” By contrast, acrylic grounds are more absorbent: oil sinks in, which can provide a bit more initial “grab” but often leaves early paint layers more matte or subdued in appearance. Some painters exploit this absorbency, appreciating the less slippery surface it creates for what they may consider advantageous for certain applications and manipulations.
Historically, the comparison is instructive. Oil grounds belong to a lineage extending back to the Renaissance and were refined by the Dutch and Flemish schools, prized for their durability and compatibility with oil paint. Acrylic dispersion grounds, by contrast, emerged in the mid-twentieth century alongside new synthetic materials and reflected the needs of a rapidly changing art world. Their speed, flexibility, and ease of preparation made them especially attractive for contemporary practices that valued immediacy and experimentation. Each ground thus embodies a different philosophy of making: oil grounds align with specific traditions with specific priorities, while acrylic grounds reflect what may be described as more modern priorities of accessibility, versatility, and efficiency.
In conclusion, when oil paint is applied to oil grounds, adhesion is both chemical and mechanical if the ground is fresh, and primarily mechanical but still highly compatible if the ground has aged. Oil grounds, particularly when combined with proper sealing or sizing, have centuries of demonstrated durability and remain the most historically reliable foundation for oil painting. When oil paint is applied to acrylic dispersion grounds, adhesion is mechanical only, with greater initial absorbency and less long-term evidence of stability. Their success depends heavily on support preparation, as acrylic films are more permeable to moisture and acids, yet their speed, versatility, and accessibility have made them an appealing choice for many contemporary painters. It should be noted, however, that conservation science has not yet provided definitive measurements comparing interlayer adhesion strengths across these systems, and risks exist in both.
I am grateful to colleagues Maneesh Yadav and John Hansen for their contributions, which helped underscore that while mechanisms can guide our understanding, we must be careful not to “over-attribute.” The ultimate performance of any ground is shaped by the full system of support, sealant, and paint, as well as by the unpredictable course of time.
Technical Appendix: Adhesion and Aging of Oil Paint on Oil vs. Acrylic Grounds
-
Oil Paint on Oil Grounds (fresh):
-
Adhesion: Chemical + Mechanical (cross-linking during shared curing process).
-
Longevity: Centuries of proven stability.
-
-
Oil Paint on Oil Grounds (months or years old):
-
Adhesion: Primarily Mechanical (surface has cross-linked; reactive groups diminished).
-
Longevity: Excellent historical evidence.
-
-
Oil Paint on Acrylic Dispersion Grounds (any age):
-
Adhesion: Mechanical only (no chemical cross-linking possible).
-
Longevity: Strong so far, but less long-term evidence; potential risks from flexibility mismatch and permeability.
-
References and Additional Resources:
Foundational references
- Mayer, Ralph. The Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques. 5th ed. New York: Viking, 1991. (Standard reference on grounds, adhesion, and oil materials.) Internet Archive
Oil paint mechanics, aging, and interlayer context
-
Mecklenburg, Marion F., and Charles S. Tumosa. “Mechanical Behavior of Paintings Subjected to Changes in Temperature and Relative Humidity.” In Art in Transit: Studies in the Transport of Paintings, National Gallery of Art, 1991. (Official repository PDF.) Smithsonian Research Online+1
-
Mecklenburg, Marion F.; Charles S. Tumosa; and David Erhardt. “The Changing Mechanical Properties of Aging Oil Paints.” MRS Proceedings 852 (2005). (Smithsonian repository record.) Smithsonian Research Online
Preparatory layers / grounds (historical and technical)
-
Townsend, Joyce H.; Tiarna Doherty; Gunnar Heydenreich; and Jacqueline Ridge (eds.). Preparation for Painting: The Artist’s Choice and Its Consequences. London: Archetype Publications, 2008. (Publisher page and catalog records.) ArchetypeWorldCatGoogle Books
-
Stols-Witlox, Maartje. Historical Recipes for Preparatory Layers for Oil Paintings in Manuals, Manuscripts and Handbooks in North West Europe, 1550–1900: Analysis and Reconstructions. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2014. (Open-access institutional repository.) dare.uva.nl
Interfaces: oil over acrylic, early-stage failures, and cleaning sensitivity of acrylic films
-
Gnemmi, Margherita, et al. “Early Degradation Mechanisms at the Interface Between Acrylic Grounds and Oil Paint Films.” npj Heritage Science (2025). (Open-access article.) Nature
-
Kampasakali, Elli; Bronwyn Ormsby; Antonino Cosentino; Costanza Miliani; and Tom Learner. “An Evaluation of the Surfaces of Acrylic Emulsion Paint Films and the Effects of Wet-Cleaning Treatment by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM).” Studies in Conservation 56 (2011): 216–230. (Indexing/teaching resources citing the article and full citation.) Getty
-
Ormsby, Bronwyn; Elli Kampasakali; Costanza Miliani; and Tom Learner. “An FTIR-Based Exploration of the Effects of Wet Cleaning Treatments on Artists’ Acrylic Emulsion Paint Films.” e-Preservation Science 6 (2009): 186–195. (Publisher PDF.) Morana RTD
Conservation guidance on supports, sizing, and preventive context
-
Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI). “Caring for Paintings.” Preventive Conservation Guidelines for Collections. (Section discusses size/ground roles; official government site.) Government of Canada
-
Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI). CCI Notes 10/4 (Paintings on Wood: dimensional response) — mechanical mismatch context for supports/grounds. (Government publication PDF.) Government of Canada Publications
Industry technical notes (used cautiously; align with conservation findings)
-
Golden Artist Colors. “Revisiting Oils Over Acrylics.” (Updated recommendations; industry summary reflecting research and zinc issues.) Just Paint
-
Golden Artist Colors. “Oil Over Acrylic Guidelines.” (Current practice guidance; warns about zinc in lower layers independent of ground type.) goldenartistcolors.com
-
Golden Artist Colors. “Solving the Solvents.” (Background on adhesion recommendations and surface tooth.) Just Paint