John Rodgers on fri 13 jun 08
Antoinette,
I love porcelain. It was the first clay I was ever exposed to in any
form. But I came into clay from the slip casting world, and slip casting
figurines and china painting them at that. I never had any exposure
whatsoever to pottery until I closed my Alaska shop. When I relocated I
found a great deal of ignorance in the public about my kind of porcelain
but I saw that pottery was widely accepted so just moved into that. I
retained my skills and knowledge of porcelain slip casting and of mold
making and still use it all the time, but it is more tied to making
pottery now than to figurines. I am constantly mixing and matching
between slip cast and wheel thrown. And I now use porcelain throwing
bodies as well as slip casting bodies. The public in my part of the
country is not particularly attuned to the specialness of porcelain.
Since I now use both stoneware and porcelain, I try and educate my
customers about porcelain, but for the most part it doesn't ring any
bells for them. None the less, for some of my work, I much prefer
porcelain, whether slip cast or thrown. With porcelain, you can achieve
a finess in the work not achievable with other clays. Porcelain -
whether slip cast of thrown, can be a big PITA at times. I can fire my
stoneware on my shelves without kiln wash, but I no can do with
porcelain - it sticks every time. The porcelain requires extra steps to
avoid problems. There are connoisseurs of porcelain out there, though,
and they know about porcelain. Wouldn't have anything else.
MY $0.02.
John Rodgers
Chelsea, AL
Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
> I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
>
> What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and how do they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not believe that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker that stoneware because it is thin.
>
> I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that want to work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to porcelain clay?
>
> --
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> www.clayandcanvas.com
> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>
>
>
Antoinette Badenhorst on fri 13 jun 08
I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and how do they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not believe that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker that stoneware because it is thin.
I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that want to work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to porcelain clay?
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
marci Boskie's Mama =^..^= on sat 14 jun 08
>From: Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>
>I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place
>that porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
>
>What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain
>and how do they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people
>often do not believe that I do not pour my work and they often think
>the work is weaker that stoneware because it is thin.
I do extremely thin ( paper thin ) porcelain plaques and
jewelry pieces that I once-fire to cone 6 with a clear glaze
, then I repaint them with overglaze ( chinapaints, luster etc) ...
and people are sometimes concerned because the
pieces are thin... but I carry them from show to show
( I do shows for china painters..
and sell the unpainted pieces for them to paint ) in metal
baskets with the jewelry pieces all just laying loose on top
of one another in those baskets
and they clank together when I hit potholes and
they dont break ( Mostly, any way LOL )
Tell your customers about the fact that properly fired
porcelain vitrifies and becomes almost like glass, which makes
it incredibly strong as opposed to other clays which will be
porous under the glaze ...
You can even tell them about the demonstration
that Wedgewood did where they lowered a
Rols Royce onto 4 eggshell thin teacups ....:O)
I couldnt find the original article about that..
. but here are some similar demos :
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/18/tea-time-lamborghini-gallardo-as-ultimate-centerpiece/
Car on Wedgewood teacups ..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikabel/938695/
Marci Blattenberger Boskie's Mama =^..^=
http://www.marciblattenberger.com
marci@ppio.com
Porcelain Painters International Online http://www.ppio.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1502 - Release Date: 6/13/2008 7:25 PM
Curtis Benzle on sun 15 jun 08
Hi John, Where is Chelsea? I am up in Huntsville...
Curt
benzleporcelain.com
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM, John Rodgers wrote:
> Antoinette,
>
> I love porcelain. It was the first clay I was ever exposed to in any
> form. But I came into clay from the slip casting world, and slip casting
> figurines and china painting them at that. I never had any exposure
> whatsoever to pottery until I closed my Alaska shop. When I relocated I
> found a great deal of ignorance in the public about my kind of porcelain
> but I saw that pottery was widely accepted so just moved into that. I
> retained my skills and knowledge of porcelain slip casting and of mold
> making and still use it all the time, but it is more tied to making
> pottery now than to figurines. I am constantly mixing and matching
> between slip cast and wheel thrown. And I now use porcelain throwing
> bodies as well as slip casting bodies. The public in my part of the
> country is not particularly attuned to the specialness of porcelain.
> Since I now use both stoneware and porcelain, I try and educate my
> customers about porcelain, but for the most part it doesn't ring any
> bells for them. None the less, for some of my work, I much prefer
> porcelain, whether slip cast or thrown. With porcelain, you can achieve
> a finess in the work not achievable with other clays. Porcelain -
> whether slip cast of thrown, can be a big PITA at times. I can fire my
> stoneware on my shelves without kiln wash, but I no can do with
> porcelain - it sticks every time. The porcelain requires extra steps to
> avoid problems. There are connoisseurs of porcelain out there, though,
> and they know about porcelain. Wouldn't have anything else.
>
> MY $0.02.
>
> John Rodgers
> Chelsea, AL
>
> Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>>
>> I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that
>> porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
>>
>> What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and how
>> do they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not
>> believe that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker
>> that stoneware because it is thin.
>>
>> I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that want
>> to work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to
>> porcelain clay?
>>
>> --
>> Antoinette Badenhorst
>> www.clayandcanvas.com
>> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>
Curtis Benzle on sun 15 jun 08
Hi Antoinette:
While any generalization is guaranteed to be wrong on many points I
would say that porcelain is generally misunderstood in the States.
Most white clays are consistently passed off as porcelain and even
when a true porcelain is used it is often used in the same way as
stoneware. Density and translucency are rarely addressed. Having
said this, contradictions immediately come to mind--especially the
many people doing wonderful carved porcelain--but I would still say
that it is generally true. Thrown porcelain probably fares better
that cast porcelain. Again, while I am sure I will stand corrected
shortly, I can't think of anyone in the States using the casting
process with the regularity and confidence of many Europeans. I think
the presence and influence of the major porcelain manufacturers has a
great deal to do with this.
As far as collectors go, the last time I did SOFA(07) it was rare
indeed that anyone even noticed the translucency in my work despite
the fact that it was lit to display this characteristic. Thin is
noticed(and appreciated) but other characteristics that define
porcelain seem to be slightly off the radar screen.
What is your perspective? I would love to hear....
All the best.
Curt Benzle
benzleporcelain.com
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst
wrote:
> I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
>
> What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and how do they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not believe that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker that stoneware because it is thin.
>
> I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that want to work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to porcelain clay?
>
> --
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> www.clayandcanvas.com
> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>
Antoinette Badenhorst on sun 15 jun 08
Curtis, someone asked the question: how do we define porcelain? When
I was confronted with this same question some 9-10 years ago on clayart I was
using porcelain clay to create pit fired vessels and several potters defined my work
as white ware. Of cause I defended my porcelain as not to be white ware and
if I have to do that today again I would give the same defense. More and more
ceramic artists that use porcelain clay for other reasons than it's dense glass
-like and translucent qualities will defend it in the same way.
We know that the challenge with porcelain clay starts from the moment that you
start dreaming up a design,(That's to say if you use the old traditional
porcelain recipe, or else your challenges starts earlier!) From the making to
the firing of porcelain is a constant challenge. One can reason
that it is unfair for people to consider any white clay as porcelain, but then;
can someone be considered "unfair if they do not know.....?
To my knowledge there are a few persons that use a combination of casting
porcelain with hand building, nobody specifically successful that I know of.
Nobody in the USA casts bone china(which is just as tedious to work with,
if not worse than porcelain)as far as I know and if there are someone doing that, they must feel very lonely!
I am still unsure if I would consider ^6 porcelain as true porcelain, but do
remind myself all the time that I might be just restricted by my own
sentimental thoughts. I worked with one bag of ^6 Frost last year and I hated it.
The clay was too sticky for my taste, but then the fired product had some
qualities of a true porcelain.
It is interesting that you mention the manufacturing companies.I wonder if
artists are not consciously or unconsciously objecting to the cookie cutter
culture that is so obvious in the United States.
I will comment about SOFA elsewhere.
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Curtis Benzle
> Hi Antoinette:
> While any generalization is guaranteed to be wrong on many points I
> would say that porcelain is generally misunderstood in the States.
> Most white clays are consistently passed off as porcelain and even
> when a true porcelain is used it is often used in the same way as
> stoneware. Density and translucency are rarely addressed. Having
> said this, contradictions immediately come to mind--especially the
> many people doing wonderful carved porcelain--but I would still say
> that it is generally true. Thrown porcelain probably fares better
> that cast porcelain. Again, while I am sure I will stand corrected
> shortly, I can't think of anyone in the States using the casting
> process with the regularity and confidence of many Europeans. I think
> the presence and influence of the major porcelain manufacturers has a
> great deal to do with this.
>
> As far as collectors go, the last time I did SOFA(07) it was rare
> indeed that anyone even noticed the translucency in my work despite
> the fact that it was lit to display this characteristic. Thin is
> noticed(and appreciated) but other characteristics that define
> porcelain seem to be slightly off the radar screen.
>
> What is your perspective? I would love to hear....
>
> All the best.
>
> Curt Benzle
> benzleporcelain.com
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst
> wrote:
> > I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that
> porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
> >
> > What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and how
do
> they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not believe
> that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker that
> stoneware because it is thin.
> >
> > I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that want to
> work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to porcelain
> clay?
> >
> > --
> > Antoinette Badenhorst
> > www.clayandcanvas.com
> > www.studiopottery.co.uk
> >
Lee Love on mon 16 jun 08
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Curtis Benzle wrote:
> HI Antoinette:
>
> Hmmm.... I'm not toooo sure about the "cookie cutter" comment. You
> should broaden your search I think.
Sometimes, the observer needs to shuck their biases and develop their eye.
When I first got back to America, all the pots looked "wrong."
I was used to looking at Japanese, Korean and Chinese pots. But I
suspended disbelief and my eye opened up. And my work is changing.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is
rounded with a sleep." --PROSPERO Tempest Shakespeare
Curtis Benzle on mon 16 jun 08
HI Antoinette:
Hmmm.... I'm not toooo sure about the "cookie cutter" comment. You
should broaden your search I think.
All the best.
Curt
On 6/15/08, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
> Curtis, someone asked the question: how do we define porcelain? When
> I was confronted with this same question some 9-10 years ago on clayart I
> was
> using porcelain clay to create pit fired vessels and several potters defined
> my work
> as white ware. Of cause I defended my porcelain as not to be white ware and
> if I have to do that today again I would give the same defense. More and
> more
> ceramic artists that use porcelain clay for other reasons than it's dense
> glass
> -like and translucent qualities will defend it in the same way.
> We know that the challenge with porcelain clay starts from the moment that
> you
> start dreaming up a design,(That's to say if you use the old traditional
> porcelain recipe, or else your challenges starts earlier!) From the making
> to
> the firing of porcelain is a constant challenge. One can reason
> that it is unfair for people to consider any white clay as porcelain, but
> then;
> can someone be considered "unfair if they do not know.....?
> To my knowledge there are a few persons that use a combination of casting
> porcelain with hand building, nobody specifically successful that I know of.
> Nobody in the USA casts bone china(which is just as tedious to work with,
> if not worse than porcelain)as far as I know and if there are someone doing
> that, they must feel very lonely!
> I am still unsure if I would consider ^6 porcelain as true porcelain, but do
> remind myself all the time that I might be just restricted by my own
> sentimental thoughts. I worked with one bag of ^6 Frost last year and I
> hated it.
> The clay was too sticky for my taste, but then the fired product had some
> qualities of a true porcelain.
> It is interesting that you mention the manufacturing companies.I wonder if
> artists are not consciously or unconsciously objecting to the cookie cutter
> culture that is so obvious in the United States.
> I will comment about SOFA elsewhere.
>
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> www.clayandcanvas.com
> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Curtis Benzle
>> Hi Antoinette:
>> While any generalization is guaranteed to be wrong on many points I
>> would say that porcelain is generally misunderstood in the States.
>> Most white clays are consistently passed off as porcelain and even
>> when a true porcelain is used it is often used in the same way as
>> stoneware. Density and translucency are rarely addressed. Having
>> said this, contradictions immediately come to mind--especially the
>> many people doing wonderful carved porcelain--but I would still say
>> that it is generally true. Thrown porcelain probably fares better
>> that cast porcelain. Again, while I am sure I will stand corrected
>> shortly, I can't think of anyone in the States using the casting
>> process with the regularity and confidence of many Europeans. I think
>> the presence and influence of the major porcelain manufacturers has a
>> great deal to do with this.
>>
>> As far as collectors go, the last time I did SOFA(07) it was rare
>> indeed that anyone even noticed the translucency in my work despite
>> the fact that it was lit to display this characteristic. Thin is
>> noticed(and appreciated) but other characteristics that define
>> porcelain seem to be slightly off the radar screen.
>>
>> What is your perspective? I would love to hear....
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Curt Benzle
>> benzleporcelain.com
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst
>> wrote:
>> > I am curious to know what you guys think about the role and place that
>> porcelain has in studio ceramic in America.
>> >
>> > What does ceramic buyers and collectors understand about porcelain and
>> > how
> do
>> they respond to it? For Instance: When I do shows people often do not
>> believe
>> that I do not pour my work and they often think the work is weaker that
>> stoneware because it is thin.
>> >
>> > I also wonder about the availability of information for potters that
>> > want to
>> work with porcelain clay. How easy is it to change from stoneware to
>> porcelain
>> clay?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Antoinette Badenhorst
>> > www.clayandcanvas.com
>> > www.studiopottery.co.uk
>> >
>
| |
|
