Artists have employed a variety of varnish coatings to protect their work. For the most part,these are urethane-based coats that served as the best graffiti protection solution prior to the advent ofwax-based sacrificial coats. When the use of a permanent coatingwas the only way to protect a mural from graffiti damage, the laborious practice of its removal was unavoidable. Further, after a few cleanings a reapplication of the varnish is necessary. The sacrificial coating is washed off with hot water--paint and any other material on top of the coating surface coming off with it and then reapplied normally by a contractor. This breakthrough, further points up other disadvantages of the permanent coatings. First, they have a tendency to gather up dirt. Particles from the air that gradually builds up an obscuring layer of scum that is increasingly difficult to remove. Second, they discolor over time, sometimes unevenly so that a streaking effect begins to appear. Third, most gradually peel off. A fourth effect that occurs with some products is their lack of breathability, which results in the trapping of water vapor and condensation in certain walls. The overall verdict is that urethane or rhoplex base varnishes are good initially,but after 2-10 years become labor intensive or destructive to the mural. Soluvar has been used strictly as a varnish for easel paintings in the past. Used by itself as a coating for murals, it does not offer sufficient graffiti protection to compete with the currently preferred varnishes. In conjunction with a sacrificial coating, however, this is no longer a limitation. The stability of Soluvar thus becomes a significant factor, in my opinion making it the varnish that muralists should be using whenever sacrificial coatings are going to also be used.
