Tim See on wed 13 feb 08
What is more important, how a piece is made or what the piece is? Some people feel very strongly
that how a piece is produced validates its existence. The other side would be "the ends justifies the
means." I guess the majority of clay art fits in the middle or many more voices would be heard when
someone rants or whines about one way or another. Instead we hear a few passionate folks defend
one end or the other with a few trying to keep the piece. I would like to hear how much process
effects your work? Or how the final goal directs studio practices? Do these choices matter at all? Is it
a series of unconscious decision that fit within the materials known limitation that simply prevent a
potter from growing? How many of the veteran potters are still trying new things? sleepy time! Tim
Larry Kruzan on fri 15 feb 08
Hi Tim,
I'll take a little swing at this one - the answer is both yes and no. How's
that for non-commitment (BG). There are areas where I allow no tolerance
such as mixing my own glazes, they will all be mixed by me - mostly from my
own research, but I am not above using a formula I got from Clayart, if I
need a certain color or look to meet a deadline. These are always tested
first and normally tweaked a little. I cannot claim originality with all of
them, But I prefer to formulate my own. That's me - a mass of
contradictions and situation ethics.
I have no problem using a slump mold generated from an existing form - I
will always manipulate and alter it to make it my own, it is what it becomes
that is important, not the dish shape I start with.
I am sure that we all have seen an art student spend a lot of time on a
project and be crushed because they get a bad grade - time spent does not
equal success. Likewise ownership of the best equipped studio does not mean
one is a great artist. Tools do not make art, artists make art.
This said tools are important as a part of the process - the craft if you
will. A potter needs very simple tools compared to a woodworker, much less
specialized as a whole but the ability to use those tools is paramount. A
artist that does not feel that craftsmanship is important will never make
good art no matter what field they explore. The process is important since
it shapes the work but it does not create the work. Concept, creation and
craft must unite for the special thing to exist that we call art.
Can art be produced if the process is flawed? Sure! We all have had those
happy failures that have opened new doors of exploration. One of my
favorite glaze combinations started as an accident one day. I was glazing
late in the day and was moving through the last of a group that needed a
simple over-dip - I grabbed a pot with a different base glaze on it and
"discovered" that these two were wonderful together. I violated my
"process" but in doing so developed a new "process".
How about that student that was so upset about a bad grade - do they examine
their process, looking for the failure or blame the teacher? In one case
that comes to mind the student was told to fill a page with a drawing of a
figure, key phrase was "fill the page". 12 others did that - the student
with the problem spent a weekend drawing a Barbie doll size figure on a
18x24 page - but she spent ALL weekend doing it so it had to be good, RIGHT!
Oh well! Her concept was OK, the craft of her drawing was less OK, but
tolerable, but she failed to follow directions and violated the process the
assignment called for.
In this case the teacher established what the process should be and there
was lots of room for individual expression and experimentation. We as
potters have the great burden of determining our own process limits, what to
allow and what to restrict. I think that the list would be as varied as it
is long - we all work differently. I would never use commercial glazes but
a friend uses nothing else. I use slump molds made from found objects and
others find that abhorrent. Some insist on using carbide trimming tools, I
like anything that is close by with an edge.
This could be a real can of worms.
G-Nite all!
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Tim See
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:13 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: [CLAYART] A Rant Elitism Wood KIlns etc.
What is more important, how a piece is made or what the piece is? Some
people feel very strongly
that how a piece is produced validates its existence. The other side would
be "the ends justifies the
means." I guess the majority of clay art fits in the middle or many more
voices would be heard when
someone rants or whines about one way or another. Instead we hear a few
passionate folks defend
one end or the other with a few trying to keep the piece. I would like to
hear how much process
effects your work? Or how the final goal directs studio practices? Do these
choices matter at all? Is it
a series of unconscious decision that fit within the materials known
limitation that simply prevent a
potter from growing? How many of the veteran potters are still trying new
things? sleepy time! Tim
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots2@visi.com
Maggie Jones on sat 16 feb 08
After working with clay and minerals since 1968, I have recently had a
few realizations about why I do the work that I do. I have always been an
artist. It is an urge to create, inherent, like the color of my hair and
eyes. The quality of craftsmanship is a priority for the skills that are
constantly evolving.
When I began learning about the craft of pottery and clay art, it was
during the sixties when the techniques had become greatly influenced by
the Far Eastern folk potter. So, as a young potter, my ideal was to make
the pottery entirely from local materials and fire them high with wood,
just as the ancients did. I was also fascinated by the activities of
mineral interaction. It is like the activities that occurred when the
earth was formed, lava flowing and crystals growing. At the Earth, Air,
Fire and Water workshop in Grass Valley, CA , 1972 ...I learned about the
whole process from handmade bricks for the klns fired with wood to glaze
materials found and ground by hand....use of kickwheels too of course. I
soon learned about waste oil firing from Dennis Parks and Paul Soldner.
Then I began collecting "Wild Dirt" wherever I went, back and forth
across the US. These materials and methods were used to make functional
ware and figurative sculpture.
"Life gets in the way"...I ended up producing a line of functional ware
for 25 yrs using an electric kiln. During that time I learned that a
flame is not necessary to make the minerals come alive. I slowly learned
the different characteristics of the minerals and how they react with one
another. I began to use this knowledge to create effects that I wanted
rather than expecting a flame to produce or finish it off.
I took a watercolor class at UNCA, which is really the only formal art
education, other than high school, that I have had. It opened my eyes to
color in a way that I never could have expected. I began to paint on
pottery and in order to get the effects of color and texture that I
wanted I looked for the source of minerals anywhere I could find,
including commercially mixed glazes...sacrilege? I decided since
painters, nowadays, do not grind and mix their own paints, then I could
use readily made color myself. However, I do look at these jars as a
source of the minerals I need, not batches of colors. I layer and paint
according to how these minerals react with each other. I still use my own
formulas, constantly adjusting. But, I have come around to where the
material's source is not just under my feet, in its natural state, but
anywhere at hand. I even collect and use the minerals that wash off my
brushes. This attitude has expanded my set of tools.
During my early years I had always ignored pottery that was factory line
produced , cast in molds etc.
Then...I discovered, george ohr, Rookwood, grueby, Tiffany, Zsolnay,
Amphora, Massier...a whole new world of ceramics that had been ignored
opened up.
How did the Martin brothers create such complicated wares in a salt
environment?...how did Palissy create such complicated, colorful work in
a wood fired kiln? these are styles, materials, techniques that I think
are rarely looked at or compared with today. The woodfired process is
wonderful but it, and the far eastern potter, is not to be put on a
pedestal, please.
Local clays are definitely more "alive".... you can feel the difference.
I also fire a sculpture or 2 with wood, just because... every once in a
while I just have to ... burn something!
http://TurtleIslandPottery.com
Maggie and Freeman Jones
ps..I have set nomail for a while, my mailbox is out of
control...speaking of wood fires, we began to evacuate last week but it
is all ok now.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:31:53 -0600 Larry Kruzan
writes:
> Hi Tim,
> I'll take a little swing at this one - the answer is both yes and
> no. How's
> that for non-commitment (BG). There are areas where I allow no
> tolerance
> such as mixing my own glazes, they will all be mixed by me - mostly
> from my
> own research, but I am not above using a formula I got from Clayart,
> if I
> need a certain color or look to meet a deadline. These are always
> tested
> first and normally tweaked a little. I cannot claim originality
> with all of
> them, But I prefer to formulate my own. That's me - a mass of
> contradictions and situation ethics.
>
> I have no problem using a slump mold generated from an existing form
> - I
> will always manipulate and alter it to make it my own, it is what it
> becomes
> that is important, not the dish shape I start with.
>
> I am sure that we all have seen an art student spend a lot of time
> on a
> project and be crushed because they get a bad grade - time spent
> does not
> equal success. Likewise ownership of the best equipped studio does
> not mean
> one is a great artist. Tools do not make art, artists make art.
>
> This said tools are important as a part of the process - the craft
> if you
> will. A potter needs very simple tools compared to a woodworker,
> much less
> specialized as a whole but the ability to use those tools is
> paramount. A
> artist that does not feel that craftsmanship is important will never
> make
> good art no matter what field they explore. The process is
> important since
> it shapes the work but it does not create the work. Concept,
> creation and
> craft must unite for the special thing to exist that we call art.
>
> Can art be produced if the process is flawed? Sure! We all have
> had those
> happy failures that have opened new doors of exploration. One of
> my
> favorite glaze combinations started as an accident one day. I was
> glazing
> late in the day and was moving through the last of a group that
> needed a
> simple over-dip - I grabbed a pot with a different base glaze on it
> and
> "discovered" that these two were wonderful together. I violated my
> "process" but in doing so developed a new "process".
>
> How about that student that was so upset about a bad grade - do they
> examine
> their process, looking for the failure or blame the teacher? In one
> case
> that comes to mind the student was told to fill a page with a
> drawing of a
> figure, key phrase was "fill the page". 12 others did that - the
> student
> with the problem spent a weekend drawing a Barbie doll size figure
> on a
> 18x24 page - but she spent ALL weekend doing it so it had to be
> good, RIGHT!
> Oh well! Her concept was OK, the craft of her drawing was less OK,
> but
> tolerable, but she failed to follow directions and violated the
> process the
> assignment called for.
>
> In this case the teacher established what the process should be and
> there
> was lots of room for individual expression and experimentation. We
> as
> potters have the great burden of determining our own process limits,
> what to
> allow and what to restrict. I think that the list would be as
> varied as it
> is long - we all work differently. I would never use commercial
> glazes but
> a friend uses nothing else. I use slump molds made from found
> objects and
> others find that abhorrent. Some insist on using carbide trimming
> tools, I
> like anything that is close by with an edge.
>
> This could be a real can of worms.
>
> G-Nite all!
>
> Larry Kruzan
> Lost Creek Pottery
> www.lostcreekpottery.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Tim
> See
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:13 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: [CLAYART] A Rant Elitism Wood KIlns etc.
>
> What is more important, how a piece is made or what the piece is?
> Some
> people feel very strongly
> that how a piece is produced validates its existence. The other side
> would
> be "the ends justifies the
> means." I guess the majority of clay art fits in the middle or many
> more
> voices would be heard when
> someone rants or whines about one way or another. Instead we hear a
> few
> passionate folks defend
> one end or the other with a few trying to keep the piece. I would
> like to
> hear how much process
> effects your work? Or how the final goal directs studio practices?
> Do these
> choices matter at all? Is it
> a series of unconscious decision that fit within the materials
> known
> limitation that simply prevent a
> potter from growing? How many of the veteran potters are still
> trying new
> things? sleepy time! Tim
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
___
> __
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change
> your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
_____
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change
> your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
>
Paul Haigh on tue 19 feb 08
I'm happy to look at various regions in my kiln that will give a more or less woodfired effect for a variety of pieces. The front line looks like it's been blasted in a train kiln. The middle looks more like gas reduction (depending on how it's all stacked). If money or logistics made access to a wood kiln very difficult, then I'd be looking at how to get the most flexibility out of an electric. In fact, there are a few pieces that I may saggar or stack with pots as an extra bagwall and try and get less atmospheric effects. Maybe I should bill them as "electric effect - woodfired pottery" :)
While it's often said that the worst zealot is the most recently converted, I'd like to say that there is interest in BOTH what is made and how it was made. As a newby that has only a couple firings in his wood kiln, I'm interested in seeing how others get the effect that I look for. If you can truly make something look woodfired in an electric, then I would say that you have a serious skill in your chosen (or logistically/financially dictated) method.
On the other hand- folks firing the kiln sometimes express a spiritual connection to the process (could be delerium induced by sleep deprivation :). If you have a personal feeling that there's more soul in a wood fired piece- hey, that's fine. I don't criticize matters of religion or faith.
Paul Haigh- likes glossy, crusty, smooth, brown, and bright pots.
Londonderry, NH
| |
|
