slipcasting/serialism

updated wed 16 may 07

Elizabeth Priddy on mon 7 may 07

I have also been pondering this as a cross-media issue.

I think that slipcasting is to pottery as:

printmaking is to drawing

a recording is to live music

a perfume is to a rose

as yoghurt spread is to butter

Each of these things has a place in the world.
I tend to prefer the one that is more pleasurable of the two,
as in a good recording versus bad live music, a fresh rose
to a synthetic cheap perfume. In no case can you categoricly
say that one is always preferable to the other.

I would certainly much rather pour my tea from a lovely slipcast
porcelain pitcher than a heavy dribble spout teapot.

I'll leave it at that.

E

Elizabeth Priddy

Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7973282@N03/


----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Besch

Oddly enough, I see little difference in process between
my prints and ceramic forms.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Brian Besch on mon 7 may 07

I'm generally a "lurker" (though I'd prefer "observer", as lurker seems sort
of creepy), but I've been following the slipcasting/handmade argument
closely. I happen to work in two media that are serial - slipcast ceramics
and screen printing. I'm curious what people's take on prints are, since
they are in my opinion, in essence an analog to slipcast claywork. For
instance, I would consider my screen prints "handmade" and I think most
printmakers would agree. I draft the positives myself from hand, coat and
shoot the screens, and layer all the inks myself, hand-pulling each ink run
with a squeegee literally in hand. No highly automated reproduction means
are used. Printmakers place a premium on screen prints that are
"hand-pulled" of course, in contrast with large edition, mechanically
reproduced prints. Oddly enough, I see little difference in process between
my prints and ceramic forms. My ceramic forms start like anyone else's -
dust in the form of raw clay and plaster. I create models from handbuilt
clay or carved plaster, cast my own moulds from them, etc, etc, and
eventually end up with, say, a teapot. I address inquiries about my work
with complete candor - I always tell people the work is slipcast, and that
I've solely designed an executed it from start to finish. I never attempt
to pass it off as anything more or less than what it is.

I feel often slipcasting is degraded because it's automatically assumed it's
undertaken with crass intentions to create cheap, mass quantities of ware.
However, if your personal aesthetic is tight, clean design like mine,
slipcasting is simply hands down the best forming method available at your
disposal, and this aspect is often overlooked. I simply couldn't create
some work I do at the same quality with another forming method.

I think there is also a (perhaps archaic) element of romanticism surrounding
"handmade" work that is unique. I certainly value handmade unique
artworks, but that doesn't logically invalidate artworks of a different
form. Personally, I enjoy works of art that exist in multiples, and people
that automatically disregard art that appears serially are either bringing
elitist attitudes to it, haven't studied enough aesthetic theory, or haven't
even bothered to philosophically consider the parallel of a musical
composition in this light.

So, I am curious to hear people's opinions on printmaking and it's
"handmade" status, which I see as analogous to the process to slipcasting.
I'd also like those who are confident that they can define "handmade" to lay
out exactly, at what point, does something cross the boundary into being
not-handmade. Of course, it is much easier to provide negative arguments
than positive ones. Ruling such and such out as "not handmade" is much
easier than giving an exhaustive definition of what "is handmade."
Unfortunately, I feel due to the shifting nature of language, a good
characterization of "handmade" will either be impossible or be dissected to
the point of absurdity. Thanks for the lively discussion on this topic thus
far; it's been enjoyable.

All the best,

Brian Besch
http://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/

Cindy Gatto on mon 7 may 07

Yes it sounds to me like you work your ass off, take pride and quality in
your work, you know and respect your materials, you know and respect the process
and in a nutshell that is what being a handmade craftsman is all about.

Cindy Gatto & Mark Petrin
The Mudpit
228 Manhattan Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11206
718-218-9424
_www.mudpitnyc.com_ (http://www.mudpitnyc.com/)
mudpitnyc@aol.com



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Ric Swenson on mon 7 may 07

The whole discussion revolves around the defintion of HANDMADE as seen by t=
he PURIST or the NON-PURIST.
=20
If you subscribe to the the PURIST view, a print is a copy of the original.=
... as is the slip cast piece a COPY of the original....not the real thing.=
A copy. Just a copy. A Xerox in other words.
=20
Modern methods can make paintings look real, but they are copies if printe=
d....made by printing process. Hand pulled or machine pulled....a copy of t=
he real artwork.=20
=20
A Spade is a Spade. Nothing more....nothing less.=20
=20
I have nothing against either form as long as one is aware of what one is s=
eeing/buying. Appreciate it for what it is.... and pay for the worth it mig=
ht have to you.
=20
IMHO
=20
Ric
=20
"...then fiery expedition be my wing, ..." Wm. Shakespeare, RICHARD III, Ac=
t IV Scene III Richard H. ("Ric") Swenson, Teacher, Office of International=
Cooperation and Exchange of Jingdezhen Ceramic Institute, TaoYang Road, Ea=
stern Suburb, Jingdezhen City JiangXi Province, P.R. of China. Postal code=
333001. Mobile/cellular phone :13767818872 +86-0798-8499600 (ofc.) +86-079=
8-8499012 (fax) E-Mail: RicSwenson0823@hotmail.com=20



> Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:26:22 -0500> From: bmbesch@GMAIL.COM> Subject: s=
lipcasting/serialism> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG> > I'm generally a "lurk=
er" (though I'd prefer "observer", as lurker seems sort> of creepy), but I'=
ve been following the slipcasting/handmade argument> closely. I happen to w=
ork in two media that are serial - slipcast ceramics> and screen printing. =
I'm curious what people's take on prints are, since> they are in my opinion=
, in essence an analog to slipcast claywork. For> instance, I would conside=
r my screen prints "handmade" and I think most> printmakers would agree. I =
draft the positives myself from hand, coat and> shoot the screens, and laye=
r all the inks myself, hand-pulling each ink run> with a squeegee literally=
in hand. No highly automated reproduction means> are used. Printmakers pla=
ce a premium on screen prints that are> "hand-pulled" of course, in contras=
t with large edition, mechanically> reproduced prints. Oddly enough, I see =
little difference in process between> my prints and ceramic forms. My ceram=
ic forms start like anyone else's -> dust in the form of raw clay and plast=
er. I create models from handbuilt> clay or carved plaster, cast my own mou=
lds from them, etc, etc, and> eventually end up with, say, a teapot. I addr=
ess inquiries about my work> with complete candor - I always tell people th=
e work is slipcast, and that> I've solely designed an executed it from star=
t to finish. I never attempt> to pass it off as anything more or less than =
what it is.> > I feel often slipcasting is degraded because it's automatica=
lly assumed it's> undertaken with crass intentions to create cheap, mass qu=
antities of ware.> However, if your personal aesthetic is tight, clean desi=
gn like mine,> slipcasting is simply hands down the best forming method ava=
ilable at your> disposal, and this aspect is often overlooked. I simply cou=
ldn't create> some work I do at the same quality with another forming metho=
d.> > I think there is also a (perhaps archaic) element of romanticism surr=
ounding> "handmade" work that is unique. I certainly value handmade unique>=
artworks, but that doesn't logically invalidate artworks of a different> f=
orm. Personally, I enjoy works of art that exist in multiples, and people> =
that automatically disregard art that appears serially are either bringing>=
elitist attitudes to it, haven't studied enough aesthetic theory, or haven=
't> even bothered to philosophically consider the parallel of a musical> co=
mposition in this light.> > So, I am curious to hear people's opinions on p=
rintmaking and it's> "handmade" status, which I see as analogous to the pro=
cess to slipcasting.> I'd also like those who are confident that they can d=
efine "handmade" to lay> out exactly, at what point, does something cross t=
he boundary into being> not-handmade. Of course, it is much easier to provi=
de negative arguments> than positive ones. Ruling such and such out as "not=
handmade" is much> easier than giving an exhaustive definition of what "is=
handmade."> Unfortunately, I feel due to the shifting nature of language, =
a good> characterization of "handmade" will either be impossible or be diss=
ected to> the point of absurdity. Thanks for the lively discussion on this =
topic thus> far; it's been enjoyable.> > All the best,> > Brian Besch> http=
://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/> > _______________________________________=
_______________________________________> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceram=
ics.org> > You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscri=
ption> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/> > Moderator of the l=
ist is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Space=
s. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=3Dcreate&wx_url=3D/friends.=
aspx&mkt=3Den-us=

Vince Pitelka on tue 8 may 07

Brian -
I can appreciate your comparison of printmaking and slip-casting, but the
whole process of printmaking involves so many variables determined by the
artist, and the finished product is a print, not a painting. It is accepted
that the product of printmaking is the result of a semi-mass-production
process. Slip-casting certainly involves a lot of skill, but once you have
pulled the object from the mold, only a little cleanup work gives you the
finished piece. Any low-wage laborer could be trained to do that part of
the process, so it doesn't really matter whether the creator of the original
does the slip casting. Slip-casting of finished objects is a
mass-production process. We generally lump slip-casting in with jiggering
and ram-pressing as "assisted technologies" - those that bring industrial
mass-production processes into the studio.

You wrote:
> However, if your personal aesthetic is tight, clean design like mine,
> slipcasting is simply hands down the best forming method available at your
> disposal, and this aspect is often overlooked. I simply couldn't create
> some work I do at the same quality with another forming method.

Why is that, Brian? Why couldn't you make those forms entirely by hand?
There are plenty of people who have a tight, clean design aesthetic who
never resort to slip-casting.

Slip cast components can certainly be part of a handmade piece. If you
assemble and fit multiple slip-cast components to create a finshed piece,
then the result is certainly handmade, because every finished piece has it's
own character determined by the artist's hands. But if you create the
original piece complete, and then take one complex mold off the original,
and cast it intact with only slight finishing of seams to create a completed
object, it's mass-production, and it's not handmade.

You write:
> I think there is also a (perhaps archaic) element of romanticism
> surrounding
> "handmade" work that is unique. I certainly value handmade unique
> artworks, but that doesn't logically invalidate artworks of a different
> form. Personally, I enjoy works of art that exist in multiples, and
> people
> that automatically disregard art that appears serially are either bringing
> elitist attitudes to it, haven't studied enough aesthetic theory, or
> haven't
> even bothered to philosophically consider the parallel of a musical
> composition in this light.

Certainly there is a considerable amount of romanticism surrounding
"handmade," as well there should be. Handmade represents the integrity of
art and craft, where the artist engages in direct manipulation of the art
materials and makes a unique object. Sometimes the difference between
objects is mostly symbolic, as when a production potter makes a series of
bowls that all stack beautifully. But the significance is the investment of
the potter's skill as an individual, autonomous artist, creating those
objects by hand. Regardless of the skill level, there are still very slight
discrepancies between the individual bowls, and they symbolize the energy
and effort that went into making the bowls. They relate a sense of life and
humanity, a connection to the real, live person that made them by hand.
Yeah, that's romanticization, but it's sound.

If the potter simply created a plaster mold and cast those bowls, he or she
would be saying that the efficient creation of marketable products justifies
sacrificing the "by-hand ' process. That could be a perfectly justifiable
decision if it means a better shot at supporting your family. I have no
problem with that, as long as the potter does not market the work as
handmade in venues where he or she is competing with truly handmade wares.
That would not be honest or appropriate.

The issue of "art that exists in multiples" or "art that appears serially"
is a separate discussion. I appreciate the works of Tony Cragg or Allan
McCollum, but in those cases, the concept of identical or semi-identical
multiples is key to the meaning of the work. You would certainly be
justified in making a piece involving multiple slipcast teapots as a commont
on "handmade vs. mass-production." Allan McCollum's "10,000 Individual
Works" was the result of programming a CNC milling machine to carve polymer
blanks, creating 100 similar-size objects that all featured radial symmetry,
but minor differences between every one in the series. So, as you viewed
all 10,000 objects crowded on a vast table, the fact that there were subtle
differences was significant only of the fact that human hand had no part in
the process other than programming the computer and setting up the machine.
That was the concept.

In the studio ceramics world, some of the most fascinating examples of art
presented in mulitples have the effect of emphasizing the handmade quality
and "personality" of the individual works presented in the series. Eamples
are Jason Hess's whiskey bottles, or Simon Levin's sets of cups. Showing
such work serially makes the subtle differences all the more distinct.
Presenting ceramics serially creates the effect of a "family," with all the
little quirks and differences we can expect of the individuals in a family.

Well, I've probably gone on long enough about this. Thanks for giving me
things to think about, and I hope I have provided you with food for thought.
- Vince

Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/

Lee Love on tue 8 may 07

On 5/8/07, Brian Besch wrote:


> So, I am curious to hear people's opinions on printmaking and it's
> "handmade" status, which I see as analogous to the process to slipcasting.

As I mentioned previously, I do woodblock print making. The
way I learned to use color from my teacher and my modification of his
technique, does not make copies so much as it does a monotype. They
are very hand made and are printed on Nishinouchi hand made washi
paper.

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Michael Wendt on wed 9 may 07

I am surprised anyone would equate any
molding technique which did not require
the basic forming be done by hand to
be hand made. If there is no "special value"
in being able to honestly say an item is
hand made, then why does anyone want
to claim it?
Hand made does help to justify higher prices
and so has a great deal of value that artisans
who really do hand work are right to defend.
Mass production molding techniques can
substantially lower costs allowing a dishonest
person claiming to be making things by hand
to either undercut market prices or scalp
the buying public.
In truth, hand made means exactly what the
words say. It does not preclude the use
of tools (wood workers, glass blowers...etc.).
The single test that comes to mind is:
given the raw materials, can the person
doing the work convert them to an artifact
by himself?
I walk into a ceramic shop and hand the
owner a bag of raw clay.
"Make me a dolphin statue, please"
They don't have a dolphin statue mold and
send me packing.
Someone walks in my door with a bag of
clay and hands it to me requesting anything...
if they agree to my price, I can make it.
Can it be anymore obvious?
Slip cast is not hand made.
Regards,
Michael Wendt
Wendt Pottery
2729 Clearwater Ave
Lewiston, ID 83501
USA
208-746-3724
http://www.wendtpottery.com
wendtpot@lewiston.com
I finally had to chime in on this with a few thoughts:

It seems to me that "hand made" is a pretty soft term,
and can be variously
defined to suit the needs of the person defining it.
The most common
definition that I could find said, to paraphrase, "made
by hand and not by
machine". I'm not sure that I would call a plaster
mold a machine, while
RAM pressed is certainly machine formed.
Timothy Sullivan
Creekside Pottery
www.creeksidepottery.net
Marietta, GA

Thomas Malone on wed 9 may 07

Hi Taylor
Well, just for
interest and risking a long debate, what do you define pottery to be?

Thomas Malone on wed 9 may 07

Hello Vince. You may not consider slip cast items to be hand made, nor
perhaps to have much artistic merit but to suggest that laborer could be trained to do that part of the process> is to severely
belittle the skill that is frequently needed by the process. I am not a
production operative, but I have known many and I have spent many years on
factories. Did you know that some production operatives, of different
disciplines, have followed apprenticeships that lasted years?

Also to suggest take one complex mold off the original> Did you know that some of the
figurines made famous by Royal Doulton and Royal Worcester are made from up
to 70 different slip cast sections. To assembly these to give a single
article requires considerable care and skill. And the biscuit firing stage
alone is something to be seen as a very complex system of props is needed.

Taylor Hendrix on wed 9 may 07

On 5/9/07, Thomas Malone wrote:
> Hello Vince. You may not consider slip cast items to be hand made, nor
> perhaps to have much artistic merit

I don't think Vince or anyone in this discussion has said that.
"Handmade" does not equate to "best made" no matter what anyone says.
>
> Also to suggest > take one complex mold off the original> Did you know that some of the
> figurines made famous by Royal Doulton and Royal Worcester are made from up
> to 70 different slip cast sections. To assembly these to give a single
> article requires considerable care and skill. And the biscuit firing stage
> alone is something to be seen as a very complex system of props is needed.

The fact that many figurines are made from multiple and complex molds
is well known by many of us on the list. In fact some of the
membership make very nice multi-mold forms that require great skill in
modeling, mold making, slip casting, etc. Great stuff. Of course Vince
was talking about slip cast POTTERY. Such molds are usually quite
simple and yes, any monkey can be taught to pull and dress the
finished piece. Any crafts person who designs, models, casts, pours,
and finishes his or her own work is a genius in my opinion and
deserves great respect, no doubt about it.

When Marci comes to my house, I'm going to bend her ear about mold
making etc. because I think every person who fancies him or herself a
potter needs to have at least a working knowledge of molds and slip
cast work. Of course, I'm a nut, so others will disagree.

Taylor, in Rockport TX

Brian Besch on wed 9 may 07

Vince - thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote my original post
not so much setting out to mandate definitions of handmade, but rather to
attempt to expose some cracks or shady areas in the originally set out
conception of "handmade." I have some further comments below for you to
consider at your leisure.

You wrote:
Slip-casting certainly involves a lot of skill, but once you have
pulled the object from the mold, only a little cleanup work gives you the
finished piece. Any low-wage laborer could be trained to do that part of
the process, so it doesn't really matter whether the creator of the original
does the slip casting.

Yes, a low wage laborer can certainly be trained to do this, but it takes
considerable skill in both solid design and engineering to create a model or
its parts, cast them, assemble them, fire, etc. I wouldn't be comfortable
claiming myself an artist or craftsperson unless I performed all of the
aforementioned steps, beginning to end. The sort of slip-casting I'm
involved in, and I suspect many other solo ceramists working for themselves
is of this type - not the factory production you refer to.

You wrote:
> However, if your personal aesthetic is tight, clean design like mine,
> slipcasting is simply hands down the best forming method available at your
> disposal, and this aspect is often overlooked. I simply couldn't create
> some work I do at the same quality with another forming method.
Why is that, Brian? Why couldn't you make those forms entirely by hand?
There are plenty of people who have a tight, clean design aesthetic who
never resort to slip-casting.

I could make some of these form by hand, but slipcasting is simply the best
method for some of the work I do. I don't really know how to justify this
beyond referencing personal experience. I can keep lines or curves super
tight, minimize distortion in shrinking, get extra thin pieces, or control
any number of variable I could describe. I think it is very telling you say
"resort" to slip-casting. When I set out to design a slip-cast piece, I'm
intending, not resorting. I want the process to show through in the work,
using slip-casting to accentuate an element of the design, never to cover up
or mask something. One of the things I noticed right away in David
Hendley's fine essay was the skew of the mug example, where his friend has
slip-cast a hand-thrown mug. Here, it seems as if the artist is trying to
"pass-off" his cast mugs as hand thrown, throwing lines and all, and doing
this as a lazy alternative to actually sitting down and putting the time
into throwing ware. Many slip-casters, myself included, have no interest in
this sort of casting. When someone picks up one of my pieces I want it to
be obvious it was slip-cast, and for that to be part of the aesthetic
appeal.

You wrote:
Slip cast components can certainly be part of a handmade piece. If you
assemble and fit multiple slip-cast components to create a finshed piece,
then the result is certainly handmade, because every finished piece has it's
own character determined by the artist's hands. But if you create the
original piece complete, and then take one complex mold off the original,
and cast it intact with only slight finishing of seams to create a completed
object, it's mass-production, and it's not handmade.

I think this is a slippery argument! I have problems with this, because it
seems a little contrived in my opinion. Say I create a teapot, and make
some elaborate mold to cast it in one piece. Then, according to this, the
teapots would be mass-produced. Now, imagine I make another teapot, but
chop it up into parts. Or alternatively, I make the pieces of a teapot but
never assemble them. Then, I cast them, and assemble into a finished
teapot, which according to this again, would be handmade (and perhaps just
sliding by on a technicality). I don't offer this example as fussy word
nit-picking, but rather to stress that for me, the blood is in the design,
whatever form that comes in. I can, by hand, lovingly craft a complicated
teapot form in plaster to be cast, or by hand using traditional clay
methods, but ultimately the end form is what's most important.

You wrote:
Certainly there is a considerable amount of romanticism surrounding
"handmade," as well there should be. Handmade represents the integrity of
art and craft, where the artist engages in direct manipulation of the art
materials and makes a unique object. Sometimes the difference between
objects is mostly symbolic, as when a production potter makes a series of
bowls that all stack beautifully. But the significance is the investment of
the potter's skill as an individual, autonomous artist, creating those
objects by hand. Regardless of the skill level, there are still very slight
discrepancies between the individual bowls, and they symbolize the energy
and effort that went into making the bowls. They relate a sense of life and
humanity, a connection to the real, live person that made them by hand.
Yeah, that's romanticization, but it's sound.

This is well written, and I agree wholeheartedly, but I nevertheless feel
that many potters or ceramists fail to recognize or accept that this is only
one facet of artmaking, and does not necessarily exclude other forms, of
which slip-casting is generally lumped into. I loved reading Hank Murrow's
description of the tea bowl his friend insisted on taking out of the box
over the carpet - the idea that such preciousness and history is loaded in a
tiny object. Nevertheless, I think the deeper issue at hand in this debate
is not actually defining "handmade", but rather many people's discomfort
with dealing with art that is serial. I happen to enjoy the philosophical
problems which art of this nature generates. I find it fascinating that in
an edition of prints, the "work of art itself" (if there is such a thing)
cannot be located in an individual print, but rather exists as a sort of
set. I feel the same goes for slip-cast work. Again, I'm not referring to
simple, crassly produced commercial ware from a factory, but rather lovingly
designed and executed work from an individual artist. I think there is
something pleasing and accessible about creating a teapot that exists in a
set, so to speak. For me, it puts an emphasis on the form itself, rather
than an individual physical object. Several people can enjoy the form in
its multiple instantiations. Perhaps I'm getting all Platonic here with my
talk of forms, but hey, I am a classically trained philosopher after all!
Oddly enough, I think what is interesting about this whole problem of
multiples is that it is a massive debate in the visual arts, while in other
branches of art, the concept is commonplace and even obvious. We have no
problem separating the "form" of a song from it's recorded counterparts, and
recognizing that the work of art does not, and perhaps cannot, reside in a
physical object. However, it seems like a stretch of the mind, or faith, to
place this aesthetic template on works in the visual arts, despite there
being many examples of their similarity. Perhaps this is in part because
technology has provided us with means of reproduction that are, in the grand
scheme of art history, fairly nascent. As both artists and philosophers, we
haven't had much time to work these issues out exhaustively.

All the best,

Brian
http://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/

George Koller on wed 9 may 07

Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
>>I have also been pondering this as a cross-media issue.

I think that slipcasting is to pottery as:
printmaking is to drawing
a recording is to live music
........
<<

..and I've been pondering along also

but my personal favorite "perspectivizer" is Orange Soda Pop vs
Orange Juice.

I remember piling out of the back of the station wagon on a hot day
and nothing could have been more important than getting a ice cold
Orange Soda Pop out of that machine.

From cool-aide to fresh squeezed..... what a range!

Let's see, , there's the real vs imitation, freshness, pulp, health, and
every kind of mixing imaginable.

Nowadays the issue is re-addressed every shopping day -
Calcium
Extra Extra Pulp
From Concentrate
Florida Orange Juice Futures
Fresh!
Brand loyalty / familiarity
With Pineapple Juice

A dizzying array of countervailing pulls and pushes... I feel like the 1980's
Russian that has seen his first supermarket and want to run out screaming.

Then my wife brings me out of my trance and says simply
"I have a coupon for this one...."
and the issue is re-re-re-solved.
For another week anyway.

Just like Slipcasting vs Handmade...

put away temporarily only to raise up again...
like a many headed dragon to be eventually
be terribly wounded and tired out but never
completely killed by the Dragon-slayers of
Clayart.

_george

Lee Love on thu 10 may 07

On 5/10/07, Brian Besch wrote:

http://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/

Check out Brian's slipcast work. Bet YOU couldn't do it (I would
have a lot of learning before I could even try.) Nice!

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Lee Love on thu 10 may 07

I really think the bottom line is "truth in advertising." The
only problem I see is when one thing is passed off as another. Just
say it is wheel thrown, press molded, ram pressed or slip cast and let
the buyer decide.

--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Vince Pitelka on thu 10 may 07

Stephani Stephenson wrote:
> the above could be said when ANY process is broken
> down into separate components, as often happens in a
> production setting.
> throwing is also broken down into components in such
> cases... the person who throws the pot does not
> necessarily trim the pot, cut the pugs, attach the
> handles, spouts, etc, clean the foot, etc. etc....
> it seems to me that one would compare the work of
> someone who does "post- casting" work to one who does
> "post- throwing" work, in larger scale operations
> where tasks are divided up..

Stephani -
All true, but I am not sure what it adds to the "handmade" debate. In the
case of the multiple workers doing different parts of the throwing process,
the work is still completely handmade. In the case of the worker who fills
a slipcasting mold and then comes back after the appropriate amount of time
and dumps out the excess slip, the form of the work has been determined by
the mold, cast from a designers original no doubt, but the mold can produce
a vast number of identical pieces which are not handmade, regardless of the
fact that an individual does the cleanup on the seams, and the subsequent
glazing and firing.

You wrote:
> in smaller studios the creator of the original is
> likely to follow through
> from start to finish, no matter how one works. in a
> larger scale operation, you tend to see increased
> division of labor, no matter what the process.

All true, but again, to me, the determining factor in the "handmade"
discussion is whether the process used can produce identical pieces when
carried out by any skilled worker who knows that process. That would apply
to slip-casting, jiggering, and ram-pressing - all "assisted technology"
industrial mass-production processes, even when used by the solo artist in
her or his own studio.
- Vince

Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/

Vince Pitelka on thu 10 may 07

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Malone"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: slipcasting/serialism


Taylor said:
>

And Thomas Malone said:
> Well, just for interest and risking a long debate, what do you define
> pottery to be?

Taylor and Thomas -
(Those two names together have me thinking of my grandson Ravi and small
die-cast toy British locomotives)

If I specifically said "pottery," it was careless of me. I apply the same
standards of "handmade" to everything made from clay as fine art or fine
craft, whether sculpture or pottery. If the piece is cast intact from a
mold with just cleanup of seams, or as I clarified in an earlier reply to
Brian Besch, if a piece is assembled repeatedly in an identical fashion from
a few slip-cast parts, then by my definition it cannot be called handmade,
regardless of the amount of skill involved in the process of making and
using the slip-casting mold. What makes the critical difference to me is
when a mold set or series of molds result in the production of repeated
identical complete units. To me that is, by definition, mass production,
even if only a few finished pieces are produced from the mold set or molds.

As far as a general definition of "pottery," we sure can't rely on
Merriam-Webster, who defines the noun as "clayware; especially: earthenware
as distinguished from porcelain and stoneware and from brick and tile,"
WTF?

Personally, both as an artist and an educator, I have always thought of
pottery as pots, and considered myself both a potter and a sculptor. But I
certainly acknowledge that our definition has to be pretty flexible there.
- Vince

Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/

stephani stephenson on thu 10 may 07

Vince wrote:
"Slip-casting certainly involves a lot of skill, but
once you have
pulled the object from the mold, only a little cleanup
work gives you the
finished piece. Any low-wage laborer could be trained
to do that part of
the process, so it doesn't really matter whether the
creator of the original
does the slip casting."

Vince
the above could be said when ANY process is broken
down into separate components, as often happens in a
production setting.

throwing is also broken down into components in such
cases... the person who throws the pot does not
necessarily trim the pot, cut the pugs, attach the
handles, spouts, etc, clean the foot, etc. etc....
so
it seems to me that one would compare the work of
someone who does "post- casting" work to one who does
"post- throwing" work, in larger scale operations
where tasks are divided up..

in smaller studios the creator of the original is
likely to follow through
from start to finish, no matter how one works. in a
larger scale operation, you tend to see increased
division of labor, no matter what the process.

Stephani Stephenson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Vince Pitelka on thu 10 may 07

Brian Besch wrote:
> Vince - thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote my original post
> not so much setting out to mandate definitions of handmade, but rather to
> attempt to expose some cracks or shady areas in the originally set out
> conception of "handmade." I have some further comments below for you to
> consider at your leisure.

Brian -
Sorry for the delay in responding. I am recovering from having ankle
surgery on Monday, and am still a bit slow (even more than usual). I'll
respond to your comments below, but first, your work is just superb - really
stunning - both the pouring vessels and the tile pieces. I do appreciate
the very thoughful sense of formal design and surface in both. Anyone who
did not see Brian's work please go to http://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/
and just scroll down to see a good selection of his work.

However, that said, I still do not see any reason why these forms (assuming
you mean the more elaborate pouring vessels) could not be made very
efficiently one-by-one with soft-slab and stiff-slab construction methods,
and thus would truly be handmade and one-of-a-kind. There's nothing wrong
with doing it your way, and I can see that you have the integrity to be
completely up-front abougt your methods and use those methods proudly with a
high degree of skill. But it does mean that you are using a form of
mass-production to reproduce identical forms, and then creating variation
only through glazing and firing. I hope that is a fair assessment. From my
own point of view, given that choice, I do not understand why such a fine
craftsman would make the choice to slipcast the complete forms. You can see
that my feelings on this issue are pretty strong, and so it is always my own
admittedly biased expectation that any artist making work of such high
caliber would place great value on the one-of-a-kind status of their work,
and would not utilize any sort of mass-production method.

You wrote:
> Yes, a low wage laborer can certainly be trained to do this, but it takes
> considerable skill in both solid design and engineering to create a model
> or
> its parts, cast them, assemble them, fire, etc. I wouldn't be comfortable
> claiming myself an artist or craftsperson unless I performed all of the
> aforementioned steps, beginning to end. The sort of slip-casting I'm
> involved in, and I suspect many other solo ceramists working for
> themselves
> is of this type - not the factory production you refer to.

But doesn't it still result in a mold set that can mass-produce multiples of
the finished piece, aside from cleaning the seams, glazing, and firing?

You wrote:
> I could make some of these form by hand, but slipcasting is simply the
> best
> method for some of the work I do. I don't really know how to justify this
> beyond referencing personal experience. I can keep lines or curves super
> tight, minimize distortion in shrinking, get extra thin pieces, or control
> any number of variable I could describe. I think it is very telling you
> say
> "resort" to slip-casting. When I set out to design a slip-cast piece, I'm
> intending, not resorting. I want the process to show through in the work,
> using slip-casting to accentuate an element of the design, never to cover
> up
> or mask something.

This just re-affirms your integrity in process - that you have chosen this
process with full knowledge of all the implications. It doesn't help me at
all, because of my own biases against anything that seems like
mass-production in the creation of fine craft. Yes, admittedly, David
Hendley and I do show our biases in our choice of language. How could we
not, feeling as strongly as we do about the concept of "handmade?" So, I
see someone making work of this quality and originality of design, and I can
only scratch my head in wonder as to why they would choose to slipcast the
forms unless their objective is to sell them as slipcast multiples in venues
that support work created through assisted technology processes.

You wrote:
> I think this is a slippery argument! I have problems with this, because
> it
> seems a little contrived in my opinion. Say I create a teapot, and make
> some elaborate mold to cast it in one piece. Then, according to this, the
> teapots would be mass-produced. Now, imagine I make another teapot, but
> chop it up into parts. Or alternatively, I make the pieces of a teapot
> but
> never assemble them. Then, I cast them, and assemble into a finished
> teapot, which according to this again, would be handmade (and perhaps just
> sliding by on a technicality). I don't offer this example as fussy word
> nit-picking, but rather to stress that for me, the blood is in the design,
> whatever form that comes in. I can, by hand, lovingly craft a complicated
> teapot form in plaster to be cast, or by hand using traditional clay
> methods, but ultimately the end form is what's most important.

"The blood is in the design" only in the quality and originality of the
design. Your designs are superb, but to me, with my admitted but
well-considered biases about "handmade," the finished product would have
more enduring value if it was truly handmade by a traditional definition. I
agree that it is a bit of a slippery argument to say that a piece assembled
from multiple slip-cast components is handmade, but perhaps I can clarify my
own stance on this. If an artist used the "multiple parts approach"
deceptively, say by casting the handle, body, and spout separately rather
than going to the trouble to make a complex mold to cast the piece as one
unit, and then assembled the finished pieces identically, it would be still
be dishonest to call the work handmade. But if the artist were to slip-cast
multiple component parts and alter them each time in different ways to make
variable finished forms, the resulting piece is certainly handmade. That's
what I was getting at, and I apologize if my description was faulty.

Again, "the end form is what's most important" if you are only considering
design and narrative. If you are looking at integrity of process in the
world of fine craft with particular concern about whether the form is
handmade, then there is much more to consider.

You wrote:
> Nevertheless, I think the deeper issue at hand in this debate
> is not actually defining "handmade", but rather many people's discomfort
> with dealing with art that is serial.

I don't think that is the issue at all, as I mentioned in a previous
message. In discussing "art that is serial," or "serialism," you are using
fine-art terminology, and while I include fine craft in fine art, with no
clear cut distinctions based on practical utility, I do recognize that most
people in fine craft do not use or accept the mainstream critical language
of fine art. So, while identical repetition of an object using mechanical
reproduction processes in fine art is serialism, and can serve concept and
narrative in unlimited ways, in the more traditionally-defined world (as I
see it) of fine craft, there is a deep-set basis for philosophical
conviction about what constitutes "handmade,", and serialism using such
processes would be mass-production, and inappropriate for the expected and
accepted definitions of "handmade."

You wrote:
> I happen to enjoy the philosophical problems which art of this nature
> generates.

I do to. I enjoy them very much, but they are philosophical problems that
are consciously addressed as an "art issue" within the realm of fine art,
and while that realm extends into fine craft, if you choose to address those
issues in fine craft you can expect to be challenged by traditionalists. I
live in both worlds. I love fine art, including contemporary conceptual
art, but I am proud to teach in an institution that offers "the highest
quality professional fine craft education" (when so few do) and teaches
"contemporary fine craft using traditional processes."

After all I have said in this discussion, I am glad that there are people
like you and Jonathan Kaplan who make very high-quality, well-designed ware,
using the slip-casting process, and present the work within the world of
fine craft. This is an issue that needs to be discussed on an ongoing basis
in order to clarify the evolving definitions and parameters of "fine craft,"
and "handmade." It's obvious that you are not going to accept my proposed
limitations of what can be called "handmade," and I am not going to accept
the inclusion of slipcast work as handmade, but I certainly have respect for
your work and your integrity.

Some people on Clayart would definitely would say that you and I are in the
process of "working this out exhaustively" perhaps even ad nauseum, but I am
enjoying it and learning from it.
- Vince

Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/

Taylor Hendrix on thu 10 may 07

At the risk of starting yet another hackneyed round of the
clayart-linguists dance, I subscribe to the universally accepted
definition of POTTERY as ware such as vases, pots, pitchers, jugs,
plates and bowls shaped from moist clay and hardened by heat. While I
am quite aware that POTTERY has by extension developed a widened and
more simplified meaning in some circles, I believe an obligation of an
educated person is to curb semantic change. Call me altmodisch.

Lee's last two posts to this thread are spot on as well.

Tay Tay, in Rock Rock

On 5/9/07, Thomas Malone wrote:
> Hi Taylor
> Well, just for
> interest and risking a long debate, what do you define pottery to be?

stephani stephenson on thu 10 may 07

Vince,

in ceramics , many of our dearly held highly touted
processes are not always so highly valued in the labor
market...

many 'low wage laborers' throw pots as well.

a skilled person is always valued , no matter what
process they have their hands in .....

Stephani Stephenson


Vince wrote
Any low-wage laborer could be trained to do that part
of
the process, so it doesn't really matter whether the
creator of the original
does the slip casting.



____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Craig Clark on thu 10 may 07

Lee, I certainly couldn't without a whole lot of learning and
practice, and I know a bit about making molds. His work is quite nice.
Stands on its own. What you said about "Truth in Advertising" kinda cuts
through all of the crap for me. The thing I like about what Brian has
said is that he tells folks upfront about the "serial" nature of his
work. In doing so he is not hiding any process from anyone. Indeed, it
is a conceptual part of what he is doing. He is also, and importantly
from my perspective, the creator of the work from the beginning to end.
Formerly more skeptical of slip cast work
Now looking at things in a different light
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
http://mudman00.blogspot.com/


Lee Love wrote:
> On 5/10/07, Brian Besch wrote:
>
> http://synapseartworks.blogspot.com/
>
> Check out Brian's slipcast work. Bet YOU couldn't do it (I would
> have a lot of learning before I could even try.) Nice!
>
> --
> Lee in Mashiko, Japan
> Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> "To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
> Henry David Thoreau
>
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>

Lee Love on thu 10 may 07

On 5/10/07, Thomas Malone wrote:
> Hi Taylor
> Well, just for
> interest and risking a long debate, what do you define pottery to be?

I am not Taylor and I don't play him on T.V., buuuutttt....

a fired Ceramic vessel.


--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/

"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau

"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi

Timothy Sullivan on thu 10 may 07

I finally had to chime in on this with a few thoughts:

It seems to me that "hand made" is a pretty soft term, and can be variously
defined to suit the needs of the person defining it. The most common
definition that I could find said, to paraphrase, "made by hand and not by
machine". I'm not sure that I would call a plaster mold a machine, while
RAM pressed is certainly machine formed.

A slip cast piece is not a finished piece of pottery. In my world,
decorating/glazing and firing are pretty important parts of the process. A
giclee is a reproduction of a painting or other two dimensional piece of
art. It is purely a reproduction technique. A jiggered or cast piece of
pottery still has to be hand finished and decorated, glazed, and fired.
When we get to the point where we have the technology to "giclee" a piece of
pottery, we'll have a different discussion.

While manufactured items are often slip cast, not everyone who casts is
doing volume based manufacturing. I would differentiate based not just on
process but on intent. WE have lots of ways to make things, if casting makes
the most sense to realize our vision, IMHO it would be foolish to make it
another way. I would certainly call Michael Lambert's work "handmade", and
would in no way fault him for casting and assembling.

I've heard too many potters talking about how they can throw x00 pots per
hour to imbue too much value into "hand made". I don't think that whatever
process is used to create an item ought to render it more or less worthy.

Regardless of how he/she goes about it, one person sitting alone in their
studio making their own distinct objects is engaging in a different endeavor
than a group of employees mass producing in a factory. I'm prepared to say
that that individual is "hand making" their ware. I'm not prepared to say
that the resultant work has any intrinsic value just because it's "hand
made". Hard work and good intentions only go so far.

Just my two cents worth.

Timothy Sullivan
Creekside Pottery
www.creeksidepottery.net
Marietta, GA

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Brian Besch
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:08 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: slipcasting/serialism

Eleanora Eden on fri 11 may 07

I haven't followed this thread so I don't know if the jist of it is over commercialism
or just the creative experience. For myself, I do the whole job start to finish
and I think that is an important dimension of my work. I don't believe that whether
this journey starts with a mold I made or a pot I threw makes a bit of difference
to the integrity of the finished piece or to my experience of it as a valid example
of my creativity.

I see as much nasty thrown ware as nasty slipcast ware. In this neck of
the woods there are people going around throwing for various potters. I'm sure
it is the same everywhere. Not to mention the people who don't even touch
the stuff they sell under their name. In my estimation it is the ownership of the
whole process, not the decision about which process is most appropriate, that
makes the difference.

Eleanora
>
>
>the above could be said when ANY process is broken
>down into separate components, as often happens in a
>production setting.
>
>throwing is also broken down into components in such
>cases... the person who throws the pot does not
>necessarily trim the pot, cut the pugs, attach the
>handles, spouts, etc, clean the foot, etc. etc....
>so
>it seems to me that one would compare the work of
>someone who does "post- casting" work to one who does
>"post- throwing" work, in larger scale operations
>where tasks are divided up..
>
>in smaller studios the creator of the original is
>likely to follow through
>from start to finish, no matter how one works. in a
>larger scale operation, you tend to see increased
>division of labor, no matter what the process.
>
>Stephani Stephenson

--
Bellows Falls Vermont
www.eleanoraeden.com

Thomas Malone on fri 11 may 07

Hell Taylor, hello Lee.

Thank you for the comment, and I guess we all know this could lead to quite
a debate.

as vases, pots, pitchers, jugs, plates and bowls shaped from moist clay and
hardened by heat.> Problems with this are:

There is no It can vary with both culture
and discipline.

There are many that
consider that form and function are irrelevant, with only the material and
processing needed to be considered.

well what about bodies that contain more none clay minerals
than clay minerals? HWat about shaping when the 'clay' is not moist?

Well if you expose the moist =91clay=92 to say, 200 oC, y=
ou
will harden it but it will not become pottery.



Well:

Fired AND ceramic? Tautology: if it has not been fired it can not be
ceramic.

Boron nitride is a ceramic, so would a vase made of this material
be pottery?

As above most consider form and function to be of no consequence.



Definitions are hell, but it can be fun debating them :-)