Hank Murrow on wed 2 may 07
On May 1, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Russel Fouts wrote:
> >> I can't buy this: . You will
> find that small amounts of ball clay have always been added for
> plasticity and dry strength. <<
>
> Hank should weigh in here.
>
> 'True porcelain' doesn't contain ball clay OR Kaolin.
>
> 'True porcelain' is a rock called Petunse.
Well, here we go again. I make no claim that Southern Chinese
porcelains of the Song dynasty forward are 'true'. The porcelains
made in the north of China, before the southern rocks were
discovered, was based upon feldspars and kaolins, etc, just like
their later European brothers.
To protect the Court supply of porcelain wares from the invading and
troublesome hordes, two potters were sent south to find the materials
to make Court wares in a region thought to be safe from the Mongols.
The 'elder brother' found a porcelainous stone which fired grey, and
whose body when fluxed with Lime resulted in a greenish-grey celadon.
The 'younger brother' found a deposit of weathered rock of volcanic
origins creating a body that fired white, and when fluxed with Lime
made a pale blue celadon. Both were the fabled wares of the
Jingdezhen region.
The only difference between the two porcelains was the iron/titania
content of the darker bodies. Sometimes when volcanic rocks are
weathered by hydrothermal alteration, iron and titania are brought
into the rock along with the hot water and geysering. This is what
happened with the Petuntse of elder brother. The rocks of younger
brother's find were free of iron and titania.
this production went on for several generations, and as they mined
the Petuntse(weathered and altered volcanic rock) deeper and deeper,
the clay content diminished and they had to add Kaolin from another
source to retain enough plasticity to work with it. Today, there is
less than 30% Petuntse in the bodies of Jingdezhen.
David Stannard of Fairbanks AK has discovered deposits all along the
Pacific Coast from Oregon to Alaska, that are based upon rocks of
volcanic origin. His work with these rocks is proving seminal, and
mirrors the work Nigel Wood chronicles in his book, "Chinese Glazes",
and it is studio-based, with the intention of working with the
materials to produce wares every bit as 'true' as the Chinese
predecessors. He deserves a big hand from those potters interested in
Porcelain, as does Nigel with his scholarly work.
The point is......... that Western potters and scholars have skewed
our perception concerning what makes a porcelain 'porcelain'. They
can be made from Kaolins and feldspars, or Petuntse (from wherever it
formed) or can be made of both materials in myriad combinations. The
lovely Song pots made with the non-translucent porcelain bodies are
more porcelain-like to me than many of the so-called porcelains on
the market today.
since I will be staying with David while doing my workshop in
fairbanks, I will query him further on these matters and report back
later. Thanks for the question, Russell.
As Bishop William Warburton (bishop of London from 1727) said to Lord
Sandwich, "Othodoxy is my doxy, heterodoxy is another man's doxy". YMMV.
Cheers, Hank
www.murrow.biz/hank
Charles Hightower on wed 2 may 07
I have been told if it isn't translucent, it is not porcelain. You or I
could throw a bowl thin enough on the rim to be translucent and thick enough
everywhere else not to be. I guess the rim is porcelain and the rest is
white stoneware.
Charles Hightower
www.hightowerpottery.com
Lois Ruben Aronow on wed 2 may 07
It would also fit the criteria of 'poorly thrown" ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Charles Hightower
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: True porcelain???
>
> I have been told if it isn't translucent, it is not
> porcelain. You or I could throw a bowl thin enough on the rim
> to be translucent and thick enough everywhere else not to be.
> I guess the rim is porcelain and the rest is white stoneware.
>
> Charles Hightower
> www.hightowerpottery.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
> subscription settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
Charlie Hightower on thu 3 may 07
Yes it would O-)
--- Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
> It would also fit the criteria of 'poorly thrown"
> ;-)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On
> Behalf Of
> > Charles Hightower
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:15 PM
> > To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> > Subject: Re: True porcelain???
> >
> > I have been told if it isn't translucent, it is
> not
> > porcelain. You or I could throw a bowl thin enough
> on the rim
> > to be translucent and thick enough everywhere else
> not to be.
> > I guess the rim is porcelain and the rest is white
> stoneware.
> >
> > Charles Hightower
> > www.hightowerpottery.com
> >
> >
>
______________________________________________________________
> > ________________
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or
> change your
> > subscription settings from
> http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at
> > melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
| |
|
