"Invention of the 'Bicycle' or a New Approach in Brush Construction?" - Article from the magazine "Art School" №5 (62) 2014.

"I always thought that inventing a new brush is like reinventing the bicycle: everything has already been said, and nothing new can be created. Don't be lazy - go online, look at the offers from the Roubloff art brush factory, and you will understand me. Such a variety of brushes, and it's hard to remember them all! What else can be added?! And yet...

Sergey Gorbachev, Honored Artist of Russia, Kirov."

The story began several years ago. The director of the Roubloff brush factory brought various brush samples to me for testing. The task was to subject the brushes to all kinds of "torture" and honestly write down any positives or negatives found. Testing the brushes turned out to be interesting, but describing the results was not so easy. In short, it was just a job.
My main task was to settle the question of whether synthetic or natural hair brushes were better. This was not an idle question for the manufacturer. Natural materials were becoming scarce, and brushes made from them were becoming more expensive. It's hard to sell many expensive brushes, sales decrease, and no one wants to lose money. However, supplying artists with low-quality tools was not an option either, as losing reputation comes at a much higher cost. The factory was looking for a solution, creating brushes not only from natural hair but also from various types of synthetic hair and different combinations of diverse materials.

At that time, I was a biased supporter of natural hair, and I did not hide this fact. Each brush I received for testing had its own hair composition, which, of course, was unknown to me. Although it's not always possible to distinguish modern synthetics from natural materials with the naked eye, all the brushes were given to me without any markings, labeled with numbers for the purity of the experiment.

The results were quite predictable. Synthetics were cheaper and more durable. However, natural hair was more pliable, and most importantly, it held more paint. Consequently, the brushstrokes obtained were longer, more vibrant, and expressive. Later, brushes made from synthetic materials with exceptionally good stroke control were produced, but their paint capacity still fell short of natural hair brushes. The explanation is quite simple. Synthetic hair is round in cross-section and has a completely smooth surface. Natural hair has a scaly structure, which means it has a larger surface area. With the same hair length, synthetic hair simply cannot hold as much paint as natural hair.

The combination of synthetic and natural hair yielded intermediate results. The strength and durability were directly influenced by the amount of synthetic hair in the brush, while the paint capacity depended on the quantity of natural hair. The brushes turned out to be good – a kind of compromise between the best qualities and shortcomings. However, there was a desire for more.

The arithmetic average was clearly not suitable for achieving the perfect combination of synthetic durability and natural hair's paint capacity. It was necessary to increase either the strength of the natural hair or the paint capacity of the synthetic hair.

It is known that natural hair gains additional strength after being treated with henna or basma. For thousands of years, many women have been using these natural dyes to strengthen their hair. Of course, I can't compare myself to those fashion-conscious women, but I had an interesting personal experience. Once, long ago, my wife asked me for a brush, any brush, to mix henna, and I gave her a new white bristle brush, size 24. Honestly, I didn't want to be distracted from my work, and the brush was the first thing I found. Soon, I got the brush back. It was brightly red-colored, but otherwise, it was "in one piece and intact," as they say. I absentmindedly put the brush back in its place, continued working, and most likely, I would have forgotten about this everyday moment, but that brightly red brush broke all records of longevity.

It seemed like the solution! However, alas, the cost of henna was so high that the brushes would become unreasonably expensive. As for how to increase the paint capacity of a synthetic brush, I had absolutely no idea. But I expressed my wish to the factory director.
To my surprise, exactly one week later, in the batch of new "experimental" brushes, I received two completely unexpected "surprises." Both brushes clearly looked synthetic. One was bright white, and the other was made of ordinary red synthetic hair, but both had a paint capacity exceeding that of brushes made of natural hair. I couldn't believe it, but the fact remained a fact. The white brush slightly outperformed the paint capacity of the natural hair brush, and the red brush exceeded it significantly!

Clearly pleased with his product and my enthusiastic reaction, the director of Roubloff factory revealed to me the secret of both brushes.

The hair of the white brush was a product of the latest technologies. It had a star-shaped cross-section, significantly increasing the total surface area of the hair and, as a result, the paint capacity of the entire brush. However, the cost of such a brush was high due to expensive imported raw materials. On the other hand, the price of the red synthetic brush was standard, and the raw materials were ordinary. The real uniqueness lay in the construction of the brush (Fig. 1), where long and short hairs were gradually alternating, creating a specific undercoat. The short hairs allowed for additional space between the long hairs, which could be filled with paint. From the outside, it was an entirely ordinary brush, but the paint capacity of this brush far exceeded that of any other brush, regardless of the hair composition. Moreover, this same construction allowed for better hair control, even surpassing brushes made of natural squirrel hair! This was a crucial quality, especially for watercolor brushes.

The simple and elegant solution to a complex problem allowed the combination of strength, paint capacity, flexibility, manageability, and expressive strokes in one brush... Of course, manufacturing such a brush was more challenging, but the price of the brush did not increase significantly. It was a real triumph - but it wasn't the end of the story, a continuation of which, surprisingly, I didn't know.

The Roubloff factory patented the brush construction and further improved it before mass production. Now they produce such brushes from a blend of hair, where the synthetic hair forms the main part, and natural hair is used for the shorter part (Fig. 2). The brush design almost eliminates the contact of the "undercoat" with the painting surface, ensuring the brush's durability is determined by the quality of the synthetic hair, which is very high. The presence of natural hair further increases (as if there could be more!) the paint capacity. They achieved the long-awaited "golden mean," which artists immediately appreciated. It looks like an ordinary mixed brush: red synthetic hair mixed with a dark natural addition. Until you try it in action, you can never guess what kind of constructive surprise awaits you. I certainly didn't know.

Following the not-yet-obsolete stereotype, I preferred natural brushes for my work and was surprised to see that both my students and colleagues increasingly chose the new mixed brushes with inexplicable persistence. Moreover, Alexander Stasyuk (Fig. 3), an Honored Artist of Russia, a professor, and the head of the Interior Design Department at the Stroganov Moscow State University of Arts and Industry, a member of the Union of Artists of Russia, and a master of watercolor, whose opinion I completely trusted, also stated that he preferred this type of brush.
– Why do you like it so much?! - I asked him.
– I don't even know why, - he replied
– Well, you just like it, that's all!
I had tried mixed brushes in my work before and rejected them for myself, but Alexander, in my understanding, couldn't be wrong about the quality of the tool. I should have tried the brush myself, so I started questioning the director of Roubloff factory. And let me tell you, he is my eternal opponent, debater, idea generator, simply a good person, and also the director of Roubloff factory on the side.
– What are you doing with these brushes? Do you smear them with honey or what? Why does everyone choose them?
– But didn't you praise them yourself, and now you're surprised.
– When did I praise them?!
– But it's the same brush! Didn't you recognize it? And I really didn't recognize it. How could I have known?
– You should have put some special marking on them, - I said, - then it would be clear.
–Sergey Yuryevich, if you had worked with the new brush, you would have understood everything even without any marking. I couldn't argue with that. There you have it, an expert! Even awkward. It's not easy to admit to stereotypes, but you have to. Then I hear:
– In general, very few people really know about the new brush. Maybe you should write about the brush and the patent?
– I'll write, - I promised. There you have it, I've written it. But a special marking is still needed!

P.S. The question of which brush is better: synthetic or natural, remains open. As many artists as there are, there are as many opinions. Each chooses their own tool, and that's right. But perhaps, to find something new in familiar things, to improve what seems to be already impossible to improve - is it worth asking yourself questions that have no answer?