Peter Coates on wed 18 jun 08
I notice that translucency is coming up a lot... My B-mix made pots
are translucent where thin... i don't see Laguna or any one else
lining up to call B-mix porcelain... So if you say so, so be it...
thanks
Peter in Oklahellma
On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Paul Gerhold wrote:
> Dear Ivor,
>
> I have a lot of the texts and have consulted them on the porcelain
> topic. I
> tend to go more with the older definitions such as
>
> Porcelain-The Smithsonian Illustrated Library of Antiques--"First and
> noticeably porcelain is smooth, white and translucent.(Translucency
> varies and can
> be difficult to detect but is present in all porcelain). Porcelain is
> resonant when struck. Resonance is a good test to see if an object
> is actually
> porcelain"
>
> Handbook of Chinese Ceramics-The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
> High fired pottery formed by combining white burning kaolin or china
> clay-which is used as either the chief clay or as the only clay-
> with suitable
> proportions of feldspar and flint and by firing the clay at a
> temperature in excess
> of 1250 degrees centigrade. Porcelain is hard dense and white; it is
> impervious to liquid, translucent, and resonant when struck.
>
> Rhodes-Pottery or other objects made from a white, vitrified and
> translucent
> body.
>
> I brought up the topic originally because it seems to me that a
> great number
> of potters are confusing Porcelaineous Stoneware with Porcelain.
> That could
> be the reason that true porcelain doesn't command the respect it
> should get
> in the craft world anymore. I have great respect for people that
> make the
> effort to learn to work with true porcelain. Of course I also
> respect artists
> who do a good job with porcelaineous stoneware. I just don't
> think we should
> confuse the two.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?
> ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Paul Gerhold on wed 18 jun 08
Dear Ivor,
I have a lot of the texts and have consulted them on the porcelain topic. I
tend to go more with the older definitions such as
Porcelain-The Smithsonian Illustrated Library of Antiques--"First and
noticeably porcelain is smooth, white and translucent.(Translucency varies and can
be difficult to detect but is present in all porcelain). Porcelain is
resonant when struck. Resonance is a good test to see if an object is actually
porcelain"
Handbook of Chinese Ceramics-The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
High fired pottery formed by combining white burning kaolin or china
clay-which is used as either the chief clay or as the only clay-with suitable
proportions of feldspar and flint and by firing the clay at a temperature in excess
of 1250 degrees centigrade. Porcelain is hard dense and white; it is
impervious to liquid, translucent, and resonant when struck.
Rhodes-Pottery or other objects made from a white, vitrified and translucent
body.
I brought up the topic originally because it seems to me that a great number
of potters are confusing Porcelaineous Stoneware with Porcelain. That could
be the reason that true porcelain doesn't command the respect it should get
in the craft world anymore. I have great respect for people that make the
effort to learn to work with true porcelain. Of course I also respect artists
who do a good job with porcelaineous stoneware. I just don't think we should
confuse the two.
Paul
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Luke Nealey on thu 19 jun 08
I am usually smart enough to hold off and not respond to these threads but
either the fact that I've been married long enough to an appellate lawyer or
I'm having to take some education courses this summer where some assignments
are to post and respond to questions posed by the instructor on a forum is
compelling me to respond to this.
It seems to me that two different things are being discussed, the actual
body and the finished product. However, the discussion seems to constantly
confuse these things. Paul, you quote several sources talking about
Porcelain:
On 6/18/08, Paul Gerhold wrote:
> Dear Ivor,
>
> Porcelain-The Smithsonian Illustrated Library of Antiques--"First and
> noticeably porcelain is smooth, white and translucent.(Translucency varies
> and can
> be difficult to detect but is present in all porcelain). Porcelain is
> resonant when struck. Resonance is a good test to see if an object is
> actually
> porcelain"
This speaks only to finished object
> Handbook of Chinese Ceramics-The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
> High fired pottery formed by combining white burning kaolin or china
> clay-which is used as either the chief clay or as the only clay-with
> suitable
> proportions of feldspar and flint and by firing the clay at a temperature
> in excess
> of 1250 degrees centigrade. Porcelain is hard dense and white; it is
> impervious to liquid, translucent, and resonant when struck.
This speaks to both.
>
> I brought up the topic originally because it seems to me that a
> great number
> of potters are confusing Porcelaineous Stoneware with Porcelain. That
> could
> be the reason that true porcelain doesn't command the respect it should
> get
> in the craft world anymore. I have great respect for people that make the
> effort to learn to work with true porcelain. Of course I also
> respect artists
> who do a good job with porcelaineous stoneware. I just don't think we
> should
> confuse the two.
Hank Murrow (and Fred P) has been a great resource talking about the origins
of Porcelain, and as such, if that is the ultimate yard stick, the weathered
rhyolite,
" Nowadays, since they have run out of the weathered petuntse, the body
has lots of kaolin for plasticity and feldspar for flux and silica." (HM)
is gone so we can no longer make "true" porcelain objects since we no longer
have the stuff its made out of. So now(and for a long time?) we are mixing
low Fe/Ti kaolin with fluxes to imitate this original stuff. Were on the
slippery slope now. I have a CM article from 1/94 by David Beumee` about
porcelain bodies. Some recipes have 50% Grolleg and some 55% Grolleg. Are
the 50% ones truer porcelains since they have less clay? It would seem to
me that its all pretty gray. Even the Chinese Ceramics book hedges and says
the white burning kaolin is the chief or only clay, well what is the other
non-chief clay if its not the only?
Then we get to the long threads about what the objects look and act like.
This seems easier, white, vitreous, translucent, resonant. But then a lot
of the people wouldn't like this. What if someone thew a white vitreous
translucent object out of B-Mix? Since we are only defining attributes, its
porcelain. And what about opaque objects made with the original stuff.
All of this reminds me of Vince and the singing porcelain. We need to use
science to explain the things it can. Be precise where we can. The
rest ya'll need to let go.
Luke Nealey
Rankin Co. MS
| |
|
