Antoinette Badenhorst on tue 24 jun 08
There is a saying that time calms all storms. I have to say I was stunned, by the belittling way that MR See attacked the information and more so me, my knowledge and personally as well as the "egos" of porcelain artists.The original letter to him will not hit home any more so I am simply going to oppose MR See with his information, which is very misleading and I'll take his letter from where it comes....
If you read in the archives, you would see that we discussed the differences
between clays as well as the plasticity of porcelain clays a zillion times
before. Also if you look at the basic ingredients that I've mentioned, you will
see that ball clay is not mentioned. Kaolins are by nature almost non-plastic
and the china clays or grollegs that we have available are a constant source of
discussion to learn how we can get it more plastic with or without ball clays
with out risking the level of whiteness. Add to that a higher percentage of
silica and feldspar which is totally non - plastic and you would deal with a
much lower green strength. If you want to achieve the best of translucency and/or whiteness, you
would not use any ball clay whatsoever( at least as far as a short time ago - I know there is newer materials available, which is not necessarily ball clays), which means that you work with what you
have; short clay that will break easily if not handled with care before firing. Add to it that several of us prefer the fact that porcelain is not so plastic, since it allows other qualities and techniques to be achieved.
It is the glass or marble qualities in combination with the thickness of porcelain that creates the ring(which
by the way changes in tone as the thickness changes)A comparison of 4x4 pine with a pencil made from ash has no relevance. So; porcelain is weak before the firing process, but very strong when fired to maturity.
As far as pyro plasticity goes; Yes most clays become pyro plastic when pushed
to maturity. Therefore designing work should always be good in any clay.However show me a
piece of stoneware that will become "pitted" on the bottom if it get fired on
grog? Show me a piece of stoneware, shaped like
http://www.clayandcanvas.com/previouswork.html ( last pot on the right) that
will loose it's shape and let the top totally topple over as a porcelain pot
will, when it reaches maturity in the kiln? You see, I have experience, not just
with bowls distorting, but also other items, including teapots with which I had
to support the handles if I wanted to maintain the shape( very difficult if you
want to glaze the piece) Oh and buy the way, my teapots are also translucent to
show where the liquid level in it is......, not just passing light........ And
that is just a few of the qualities of porcelain that I try to use.
Most of us agree that every kind of clay has it's own uniquenesses and every style and method has
its own beauty.
MR See, next time when you have an opinion, try to stay to the subject and do not attack the writer. Anything you say will be kept against you, so you have the right to remain silent........
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Tim See
> > Antoinette Badenhorst, I understand you have some
> > experience and a great bit of acquired knowledge but
> > some of things you have written recently have been
> > quite opposing to my personal experiences, and to have
> > a balanced dialog here I figured I would include some
> > of what I have encountered.
> >
> > " The main difference between stoneware and porcelain
> > is that stoneware contains more clay, which makes it
> > easy to shape. It's sticky(when wet) and
> > stronger(when bone dry). On the contrary porcelain
> > contains very little clay(in comparison with other
> > clays)"
> >
> > It struck me right away that this is not true with the
> > clays I work with now or with what I have worked with
> > in the past. flipping through a few books it seems
> > that if there is more clay in stoneware it is a
> > marginal in amount. The difference in clay content
> > from a cone 10 to a cone 04 clay is much more
> > dramatic. Clay content in terms of percentage clay/not
> > clay can effect the dry strength of the clay but I
> > have found it is more the case of what kind of clay is
> > it. As an observation I have found clay with a higher
> > rate of shrinkage has a higher dry strength. And a
> > clay body which contains a variety of particle sizes
> > to be strong either porcelain or stoneware. and that
> > comes down to what happens when the water leaves the
> > clay. Imagine a bowl filled with balls all equal in
> > density to that of water but of varying size. As the
> > water is drained those balls come together till all
> > the water is gone. The larger the balls in the
> > container the larger the gaps. If there were small
> > balls and medium balls those spaces would be filled.
> > Now if this container was filled with very small balls
> > it would become very dense. Therefore if this was a
> > clay-body containing small particles you can see how
> > it would pack together tighter and therefore become
> > stronger than a clay with larger particle sizes. Fire
> > clays have the larger structures to kaolins and ball
> > clays which are smaller. A clay body containing a
> > higher percentage of kaolins and ball clays to the
> > over all percentage end up being stronger.
> >
> > "Porcelain's best qualities comes out if it is thin,
> > which is harder to do since the clay has very little
> > green strength. Thinner also makes it harder to glaze,
> > since it needs just the right touch. Take these
> > characteristic which causes more breakages than
> > average under the most experience porcelain artists"
> >
> > One would guess from this statement that you make
> > bowls or open items. the translucency from porcelain
> > can only be seen when light can pass from behind the
> > piece to other side, as in a bowl. other items like
> > jars and plates and mugs and such too could have a
> > interior available to light. I would say its whiteness
> > and fine tooth are better qualities but thats my
> > opinion. (I throw vases and teapots and the such) Now
> > if any clay was pushed to the thinness that you push
> > the southern ice to gain sufficiently translucent, it
> > too would become brittle. I feel it is not the
> > weakness of the clay but a weakness in the physcial
> > structure of the pot. example a 4x4 pine will be
> > stronger than a pencil made of ash, even though pine
> > is a weaker wood.
> >
> > "Since the glass content of porcelain is so high and
> > there is lesser clay to hold it together, porcelain
> > "moves" in the kiln. Easy to slump or deform. So one
> > has to know his sit and stand when designing and
> > firing porcelain. It is also interesting how one
> > learns to predict and use the movement of porcelain in
> > the firing process."
> >
> > Again this has to do with the thinness of the work
> > along with the clay it is created with. anything will
> > slump if thin enough and fired to maturity. We have
> > stoneware that goes through pyroplastic deformation
> > and porcelains that never move. Shape does play a part
> > but it plays a part in all clays and does not need to
> > be a concern to only porcleain artists.
> >
> > And I guess I would like to add a bit of my feeling on
> > this discussion of porcelains. I have always felt that
> > the use of porcelain has some kind of romance aspect
> > to it. that using it is mythical and secretive and all
> > sorts of horrible things happen when you use it. I
> > have had few issues with porcelain my students have
> > had some issues but they are consistent to the issues
> > they have with any other clay. And I have wondered is
> > it the strictly porcelain artists that attempt to
> > elevate their material to fulfill their ego, to charge
> > more, to become elite. And in doing so do others that
> > haven't used it perpetuate that feeling by repeating
> > it "porcelain is too had to use." I can see the cost
> > of it making people timid and less risky with its use.
> > But if you have a unlimited source of free porcelain
> > the abilities and piece attempted would be as
> > ambitious as those in other clays. In my opinion
> > porcelain is no different than other clays. Each well
> > thought and produced clay has its strengths and
> > weaknesses. Every clay has issues that are unique to
> > that clay.
> >
> > I think the larger issue is what is attempted with
> > porcelain is more extreme to exploit a characteristic
> > of porcelain. Thinness in any ware will be difficult
> > and cause breakage but why made a raku piece paper
> > thin (well I can think of a few) why made a dinner
> > plate from stoneware paper thin? you wouldn't but if
> > you did there would be warping and cracking and
> > breakage.
> >
> > To define it well it seems simple to me. Any clay body
> > that is free enough from iron and other impurities to
> > become white and translucent, would be a porcelain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > TiM SEE
> >
> > Syracuse, NY
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=timseepots
> > http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5467443
>
Luke Nealey on tue 24 jun 08
Dear Antoinette,
I gotta say that, while maybe not agreeing with Mr. See's bringing so much
personality into it, as I have read the many posts on this thread I have
gotten the feeling that you want to define "true" porcelain as stuff like
you make and only that. The objects pictured on your web site are amazing
and cool, especially to the eye a rank amateur potter like myself who has
never had an art course since junior high school and am light years away
from your skills.
When I started to throw a few years ago I got on the web and looked at
websites. The stuff that really turned me on was Paul Herman's stuff, so
I bought a chainsaw and built a kiln. I knew what I wanted to do. I hope
to fire on Friday. I have a number of pieces thrown from "porcelain", one
of which is a sink, which I doubt will be translucent. I like porcelain in
my kiln because helmer slip really pops on it, it really shows the little
bit of ash in my fast fire kiln, etc. I don't really worry a whole lot
where it sits on the spectrum of what is what.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the "public" has a zillion ways to
look for and find the things they like, all one has to do on clayart is
clink on an artist's link to look at their work (as I did on yours). I
don't know that it matters to most how or what it is; but it is the job of
the individual artist or artists of a certain technique to educate, inform
or advocate if that's what they feel is needed. You will, however, get
people on this list stirred up if you start trying to put a whole lot of
boxes around things without a pretty solid argument.
Regards,
Luke Nealey
Rankin Co. MS
Tim See on wed 25 jun 08
Well I cannot let the “. Anything you say will be
kept against you, so you have the right to remain
silent...... “ just go unanswered for a few reasons.
The first being what I had written was neither an
“attack” nor an attempt to belittle. And further more
not an attack on you personally. I do not know you. I
have checked your website and read your recent
comments on porcelain and have had experiences that
differ from you. The second, this forum we call
clayart is not run so only one persons opinions trump
all others. We all have a voice and I believe I
expressed my opinion with data that made it relative
to the discussion. Third because what I had posted
earlier hasn’t changed and either I need to further
explain or conclude I am just an idiot.
As a response to your previous post I will address
your concerns as narrowly as possible .
“If you read in the archives, you would see that we
discussed the differences
between clays as well as the plasticity of porcelain
clays a zillion times
before. Also if you look at the basic ingredients that
I've mentioned, you will
see that ball clay is not mentioned.”
The archives are a fantastic resource and when I want
someone elses opinion on something I care little
enough about to test myself I will look that
information up. I mean how often do two different
people have two different expierences? Who knows which
one I would find? I was not referring to Southern Ice
or your clays, I was referring to experience I have
had with my clays. I had written
>> It struck me right away that this is not true
with the
> > clays I work with now or with what I have worked
with
> > in the past. flipping through a few books it seems
> > that if there is more clay in stoneware it is a
> > marginal in amount. The difference in clay content
> > from a cone 10 to a cone 04 clay is much more
> > dramatic. Clay content in terms of percentage
clay/not
> > clay can effect the dry strength of the clay but I
> > have found it is more the case of what kind of
clay is
> > it. As an observation I have found clay with a
higher
> > rate of shrinkage has a higher dry strength. And a
> > clay body which contains a variety of particle
sizes
> > to be strong either porcelain or stoneware. and
that
> > comes down to what happens when the water leaves
the
> > clay. Imagine a bowl filled with balls all equal
in
> > density to that of water but of varying size. As
the
> > water is drained those balls come together till
all
> > the water is gone. The larger the balls in the
> > container the larger the gaps. If there were small
> > balls and medium balls those spaces would be
filled.
> > Now if this container was filled with very small
balls
> > it would become very dense. Therefore if this was
a
> > clay-body containing small particles you can see
how
> > it would pack together tighter and therefore
become
> > stronger than a clay with larger particle sizes.
Fire
> > clays have the larger structures to kaolins and
ball
> > clays which are smaller. A clay body containing a
> > higher percentage of kaolins and ball clays to the
> > over all percentage end up being stronger.
> > stronger than a clay with larger particle sizes.
Fire
> > clays have the larger structures to kaolins and
ball
> > clays which are smaller. A clay body containing a
> > higher percentage of kaolins and ball clays to the
> > over all percentage end up being stronger.
you then repied with this
“Kaolins are by nature almost non-plastic
and the china clays or grollegs that we have available
are a constant source of
discussion to learn how we can get it more plastic
with or without ball clays
with out risking the level of whiteness. Add to that a
higher percentage of
silica and feldspar which is totally non - plastic and
you would deal with a
much lower green strength. If you want to achieve the
best of translucency and/or whiteness, you
would not use any ball clay whatsoever( at least as
far as a short time ago - I know there is newer
materials available, which is not necessarily ball
clays), which means that you work with what you
have; short clay that will break easily if not handled
with care before firing. Add to it that several of us
prefer the fact that porcelain is not so plastic,
since it allows other qualities and techniques to be
achieved.”
I had not mentioned the plasticity of any other the
clay I HAD mentioned the shrinkage which is linked to
the amount of water in the claybody and how it is
distributed. You link plasticity with dry strength, I
link shrinkage with dry strength. plasticity is much
harder to quantify. (is there a standard test of
plasticity) while testing I found shrinkage tests are
easily performed.
To further this point if you were to take a stoneware
that contains sand grog and all the other stuff
stoneware has and make an identical object out of
southern ice the green strength(unfired bone dry) will
be higher in the southern ice. And before you have a
fit test it. I make little cups and am rough in the
process. I make some from porcelain, “frost” “16”
and “257” ← I think all of which are cone 6
poreclains and with stonewares like bmix wood
“250” I always have problems with chipping, handles
breaking, and cracking during transportation. I have
very few issues with the porcelain. SO I tested it and
sure enough a tiles made with porcelain and the same
made from stoneware were different. the porcelain were
significantly stronger. I will recreate this test and
post the results whatever they might be on youtube if
further proof is needed.
The rest of what you write deals with a firing aspect
of porcelain. This part of the topic it became hard
for me to understand and perhaps you will explain it
further. This is how I understand firing clay as a
whole regarding the final temperature/ cone reached. I
was taught and have practiced that you fire till the
clay becomes hard durable and vitreous. There are many
exceptions to this I know. Now if I was firing a cone
10 kiln and I had something slump or deform so much
that I noticed it I would say it was overfired.
Porcelain as I understand it is another animal. You
say
“You see, I have experience, not just
with bowls distorting, but also other items, including
teapots with which I had
to support the handles if I wanted to maintain the
shape”
I can guess you are firing to the point of distortion
for translucency. I wont put words in your mouth so
let us know why you fire past the point that your work
is stable. I fire my work till it becomes translucent,
around 1% absorbency with no visual distortion. No I
take that back. My apologies I have had mug handles
pull the rest of the piece out of shape when I was in
college firing to cone 10/11. But nothing at cone 6.
You write
“As far as pyro plasticity goes; Yes most clays become
pyro plastic when pushed
to maturity. Therefore designing work should always be
good in any clay. However show me a
piece of stoneware that will become "pitted" on the
bottom if it get fired on
grog?”
I could melt a cone six stoneware into a puddle does
that count? Do you see what I mean? A claybody
shouldn’t be formulated to slump or melt at its
recommended firing temperature. If I did show you
stoneware that dimpled when fired on grog I wouldn’t
be using it. We may have differing opinions on
maturity of clay. But do we need to decide a winner or
looser in this aspect. If you prefer all the
precautions needed to fire the way you do to get the
look you want that is fine. Everyone works the way
they want to work. But should the way you fire be used
as a standard? So much so that other like myself that
fire differently should be silenced? There are
instances that I prefer my clay to sag a bit side
fired pieces in a wood kiln for example.
you finish by writting
“MR See, next time when you have an opinion, try to
stay to the subject and do not attack the writer.
Anything you say will be kept against you, so you have
the right to remain silent...... ..”
I hope I stayed on subject. Antoinette, I try not to
attack if what was written in the previous post was
taken as one I am sorry. It is so important that
everyone shares and everyone has their own opinion. No
single person has all the answers nor does an
archieve, we shoulkd all add to discussions when we
feel compelled. My post was not meant to be an attack
any more than yours was an attack at Ivor or Paul
“...and while you mention that Ivor; Paul I hope I do
not underestimate your
knowledge here, but for the record;”
This forum represents professionals educators students
hobbyists and others, and I hope people with less
expertise in clay get a variety of viewpoints that are
backed with research and evidence so they can chart
their own path.
I hope the last post was a result of misunderstanding
each other and is soon water under the bridge. It
would be nice to have a tests and results area where
tests (the procedure, predicted outcome, variables,
the test itself, outcome, and a conclusion) could be
posted.
TiM SEE
Syracuse, NY
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 25 jun 08
Dear Antoinette Badenhorst ,
I enjoyed your recollection of your experience with having a piece of
work authenticated.
You tell us of the judge in this case
<< "Afterwards one of SA's ceramic scientists(I forgot his name) told
me that he wrote a certificate of authenticity to go with the plate. I
asked him how he knew it was porcelain since I did not mention it. His
answer was simple; it was " I knew">>
If he did this service as a scientist he should have been able to give
the cause of his "Knowing". He should have describe the qualities on
which his opinion was based and what distinguished it from examples of
other forms of ceramic material.
So, do we come back t the physical characteristics that are
observable?. Since he was able to make his judgement without knowledge
of your initial ingredients, composition is not necessary as
information required to qualify his opinion. A pity we do not know
what did he observe that enabled him to form his judgement.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Antoinette Badenhorst on wed 25 jun 08
MR See, thank you for changing the style of your e-mail. Please do not stay silent if you can stick to the subject as you just did. Sure your input and knowledge is valuable if we can do that without a back and forth bickering.....And no I do not think I attacked Ivor or Paul. I know and respect Ivor for many years. He is an Icon on Clayart. He is also a very wise person. I do not know Paul and other than what I so often see happening on this forum, I wanted for him to know that I honestly do not know his level of expertize and did not want to offend him by that. You misunderstood my intend and hopefully you will in future know that there are no hidden agendas behind my words.
As far as your and my conversation goes, I said that I said enough about porcelain for now. There is no reason for me to keep on bickering and get others tired of that. I said what I believe and I do not have to repeat that.
I can not resist one more comment though: please go find my e-mail where I referred to Frost......
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Tim See
> Well I cannot let the “. Anything you say will be
> kept against you, so you have the right to remain
> silent...... “ just go unanswered for a few reasons.
> The first being what I had written was neither an
> “attack” nor an attempt to belittle. And further more
> not an attack on you personally. I do not know you. I
> have checked your website and read your recent
> comments on porcelain and have had experiences that
> differ from you. The second, this forum we call
> clayart is not run so only one persons opinions trump
> all others. We all have a voice and I believe I
> expressed my opinion with data that made it relative
> to the discussion. Third because what I had posted
> earlier hasn’t changed and either I need to further
> explain or conclude I am just an idiot.
>
>
>
> As a response to your previous post I will address
> your concerns as narrowly as possible .
>
> “If you read in the archives, you would see that we
> discussed the differences
> between clays as well as the plasticity of porcelain
> clays a zillion times
> before. Also if you look at the basic ingredients that
> I've mentioned, you will
> see that ball clay is not mentioned.”
>
> The archives are a fantastic resource and when I want
> someone elses opinion on something I care little
> enough about to test myself I will look that
> information up. I mean how often do two different
> people have two different expierences? Who knows which
> one I would find? I was not referring to Southern Ice
> or your clays, I was referring to experience I have
> had with my clays. I had written
> >> It struck me right away that this is not true
> with the
> > > clays I work with now or with what I have worked
> with
> > > in the past. flipping through a few books it seems
> > > that if there is more clay in stoneware it is a
> > > marginal in amount. The difference in clay content
> > > from a cone 10 to a cone 04 clay is much more
> > > dramatic. Clay content in terms of percentage
> clay/not
> > > clay can effect the dry strength of the clay but I
> > > have found it is more the case of what kind of
> clay is
> > > it. As an observation I have found clay with a
> higher
> > > rate of shrinkage has a higher dry strength. And a
> > > clay body which contains a variety of particle
> sizes
> > > to be strong either porcelain or stoneware. and
> that
> > > comes down to what happens when the water leaves
> the
> > > clay. Imagine a bowl filled with balls all equal
> in
> > > density to that of water but of varying size. As
> the
> > > water is drained those balls come together till
> all
> > > the water is gone. The larger the balls in the
> > > container the larger the gaps. If there were small
> > > balls and medium balls those spaces would be
> filled.
> > > Now if this container was filled with very small
> balls
> > > it would become very dense. Therefore if this was
> a
> > > clay-body containing small particles you can see
> how
> > > it would pack together tighter and therefore
> become
> > > stronger than a clay with larger particle sizes.
> Fire
> > > clays have the larger structures to kaolins and
> ball
> > > clays which are smaller. A clay body containing a
> > > higher percentage of kaolins and ball clays to the
> > > over all percentage end up being stronger.
> > > stronger than a clay with larger particle sizes.
> Fire
> > > clays have the larger structures to kaolins and
> ball
> > > clays which are smaller. A clay body containing a
> > > higher percentage of kaolins and ball clays to the
> > > over all percentage end up being stronger.
>
>
> you then repied with this
> “Kaolins are by nature almost non-plastic
> and the china clays or grollegs that we have available
> are a constant source of
> discussion to learn how we can get it more plastic
> with or without ball clays
> with out risking the level of whiteness. Add to that a
> higher percentage of
> silica and feldspar which is totally non - plastic and
> you would deal with a
> much lower green strength. If you want to achieve the
> best of translucency and/or whiteness, you
> would not use any ball clay whatsoever( at least as
> far as a short time ago - I know there is newer
> materials available, which is not necessarily ball
> clays), which means that you work with what you
> have; short clay that will break easily if not handled
> with care before firing. Add to it that several of us
> prefer the fact that porcelain is not so plastic,
> since it allows other qualities and techniques to be
> achieved.”
>
> I had not mentioned the plasticity of any other the
> clay I HAD mentioned the shrinkage which is linked to
> the amount of water in the claybody and how it is
> distributed. You link plasticity with dry strength, I
> link shrinkage with dry strength. plasticity is much
> harder to quantify. (is there a standard test of
> plasticity) while testing I found shrinkage tests are
> easily performed.
>
>
>
> To further this point if you were to take a stoneware
> that contains sand grog and all the other stuff
> stoneware has and make an identical object out of
> southern ice the green strength(unfired bone dry) will
> be higher in the southern ice. And before you have a
> fit test it. I make little cups and am rough in the
> process. I make some from porcelain, “frost” “16”
> and “257” ← I think all of which are cone 6
> poreclains and with stonewares like bmix wood
> “250” I always have problems with chipping, handles
> breaking, and cracking during transportation. I have
> very few issues with the porcelain. SO I tested it and
> sure enough a tiles made with porcelain and the same
> made from stoneware were different. the porcelain were
> significantly stronger. I will recreate this test and
> post the results whatever they might be on youtube if
> further proof is needed.
>
> The rest of what you write deals with a firing aspect
> of porcelain. This part of the topic it became hard
> for me to understand and perhaps you will explain it
> further. This is how I understand firing clay as a
> whole regarding the final temperature/ cone reached. I
> was taught and have practiced that you fire till the
> clay becomes hard durable and vitreous. There are many
> exceptions to this I know. Now if I was firing a cone
> 10 kiln and I had something slump or deform so much
> that I noticed it I would say it was overfired.
> Porcelain as I understand it is another animal. You
> say
>
> “You see, I have experience, not just
> with bowls distorting, but also other items, including
> teapots with which I had
> to support the handles if I wanted to maintain the
> shape”
>
> I can guess you are firing to the point of distortion
> for translucency. I wont put words in your mouth so
> let us know why you fire past the point that your work
> is stable. I fire my work till it becomes translucent,
> around 1% absorbency with no visual distortion. No I
> take that back. My apologies I have had mug handles
> pull the rest of the piece out of shape when I was in
> college firing to cone 10/11. But nothing at cone 6.
>
> You write
>
> “As far as pyro plasticity goes; Yes most clays become
> pyro plastic when pushed
> to maturity. Therefore designing work should always be
> good in any clay. However show me a
> piece of stoneware that will become "pitted" on the
> bottom if it get fired on
> grog?”
>
> I could melt a cone six stoneware into a puddle does
> that count? Do you see what I mean? A claybody
> shouldn’t be formulated to slump or melt at its
> recommended firing temperature. If I did show you
> stoneware that dimpled when fired on grog I wouldn’t
> be using it. We may have differing opinions on
> maturity of clay. But do we need to decide a winner or
> looser in this aspect. If you prefer all the
> precautions needed to fire the way you do to get the
> look you want that is fine. Everyone works the way
> they want to work. But should the way you fire be used
> as a standard? So much so that other like myself that
> fire differently should be silenced? There are
> instances that I prefer my clay to sag a bit side
> fired pieces in a wood kiln for example.
>
> you finish by writting
>
> “MR See, next time when you have an opinion, try to
> stay to the subject and do not attack the writer.
> Anything you say will be kept against you, so you have
> the right to remain silent...... ..”
>
> I hope I stayed on subject. Antoinette, I try not to
> attack if what was written in the previous post was
> taken as one I am sorry. It is so important that
> everyone shares and everyone has their own opinion. No
> single person has all the answers nor does an
> archieve, we shoulkd all add to discussions when we
> feel compelled. My post was not meant to be an attack
> any more than yours was an attack at Ivor or Paul
> “...and while you mention that Ivor; Paul I hope I do
> not underestimate your
> knowledge here, but for the record;”
>
> This forum represents professionals educators students
> hobbyists and others, and I hope people with less
> expertise in clay get a variety of viewpoints that are
> backed with research and evidence so they can chart
> their own path.
> I hope the last post was a result of misunderstanding
> each other and is soon water under the bridge. It
> would be nice to have a tests and results area where
> tests (the procedure, predicted outcome, variables,
> the test itself, outcome, and a conclusion) could be
> posted.
>
> TiM SEE
>
> Syracuse, NY
Antoinette Badenhorst on wed 25 jun 08
Hi Ivor. Trust you not to allow things to hang in mid air! I trust that you and Olive are doing fine that far down south. It's winter there right now right....?
As far as the plate is concerned, you must remember that I was a young potter in my first years of working and challenging porcelain, so even if he did explain to me why he knew it was porcelain, it would have been above my head. I remember in those days potters talked about how difficult it is to throw with porcelain and of cause I had to take on the challenge. I could not understand what all the fuss was about, since I could throw a small, thin bowl easily. ( was that beginners luck or what - I was mostly self taught from experience and books. )
The plate was colored with cobalt ( I did not take photographs of my work in those days) to become a bright cobalt blue ( do not ask me about the volumes) Dorothy Feibleman was my big hero at the time with her wonderful agate ware and " The potter's Manual" by Kenneth Clark was my potters bible. I remember the plate was thinly made and had some glass- like qualities( I knew about the ring that qualifies mature porcelain). I glazed it very thinly ( I do not think I had a good transparent glaze available and I know I did not just fire it out without glaze. I also remembered that I used a commercial porcelain clay body and fired to cone 8.
I know it is little to go on, but I also know that you with your wealth of knowledge and experience ( which I wish you will share in this regard) would be able to recognize a piece of porcelain from a distance.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Ivor and Olive Lewis
> Dear Antoinette Badenhorst ,
>
> I enjoyed your recollection of your experience with having a piece of
> work authenticated.
> You tell us of the judge in this case
> << "Afterwards one of SA's ceramic scientists(I forgot his name) told
> me that he wrote a certificate of authenticity to go with the plate. I
> asked him how he knew it was porcelain since I did not mention it. His
> answer was simple; it was " I knew">>
> If he did this service as a scientist he should have been able to give
> the cause of his "Knowing". He should have describe the qualities on
> which his opinion was based and what distinguished it from examples of
> other forms of ceramic material.
> So, do we come back t the physical characteristics that are
> observable?. Since he was able to make his judgement without knowledge
> of your initial ingredients, composition is not necessary as
> information required to qualify his opinion. A pity we do not know
> what did he observe that enabled him to form his judgement.
> Best regards,
> Ivor Lewis.
> Redhill,
> South Australia.
Antoinette Badenhorst on wed 25 jun 08
Luke, I worked with several different kinds of porcelain over the years. Since
1994 I've created pit fired vessels from porcelain clay. I mixed my own recipes
and I used manufactured porcelain in South Africa as well as the USA. I also
colored porcelain clay with oxides. Every time I changed the recipe or the
manufactured porcelain I did that with some purpose. Porcelain clay has many
faces and maybe that is why it is so hard to define it by itself, but there are
certain things that one just can not ignore when defining a porcelain body and
those are the ones that makes a "true porcelain". Mike Gorden was so kind to send me a web link http://www.selfridgeceramicart.ca/ I went to look at the collection of Carol and Richard Selfridge. I made a little game of it by guessing from the images which pieces are porcelain clay and which ones are not. I got it spot on every time.
I am going to shut my conversation about porcelain with this little tale: Some
years back in my early days of working with porcelain I took part in a show in
South Africa, but was not personally present. One of my pieces that sold to a
European lady was a colored porcelain plate with an elephant that I created with
manganese oxide( scraffigo). Afterwards one of SA's ceramic scientists(I forgot
his name) told me that he wrote a certificate of authenticity to go with the
plate. I asked him how he knew it was porcelain since I did not mention it. His
answer was simple; it was"I knew"
Porcelain is porcelain and when one has a piece of it in your hands, you just
know......
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Luke Nealey
> Dear Antoinette,
>
> I gotta say that, while maybe not agreeing with Mr. See's bringing so much
> personality into it, as I have read the many posts on this thread I have
> gotten the feeling that you want to define "true" porcelain as stuff like
> you make and only that. The objects pictured on your web site are amazing
> and cool, especially to the eye a rank amateur potter like myself who has
> never had an art course since junior high school and am light years away
> from your skills.
>
> When I started to throw a few years ago I got on the web and looked at
> websites. The stuff that really turned me on was Paul Herman's stuff, so
> I bought a chainsaw and built a kiln. I knew what I wanted to do. I hope
> to fire on Friday. I have a number of pieces thrown from "porcelain", one
> of which is a sink, which I doubt will be translucent. I like porcelain in
> my kiln because helmer slip really pops on it, it really shows the little
> bit of ash in my fast fire kiln, etc. I don't really worry a whole lot
> where it sits on the spectrum of what is what.
>
> I guess what I am trying to say is that the "public" has a zillion ways to
> look for and find the things they like, all one has to do on clayart is
> clink on an artist's link to look at their work (as I did on yours). I
> don't know that it matters to most how or what it is; but it is the job of
> the individual artist or artists of a certain technique to educate, inform
> or advocate if that's what they feel is needed. You will, however, get
> people on this list stirred up if you start trying to put a whole lot of
> boxes around things without a pretty solid argument.
>
> Regards,
> Luke Nealey
> Rankin Co. MS
Maurice Weitman on thu 26 jun 08
Greetings, folks,
As some of you may be aware, I've been otherwise occupied lately...
packing to move in a few days.
Once in a while, though, I cruise clayart to see how well it's
working (or not working), and I even scan the messages at times.
I don't know what caught my eye with this topic, but I immediately
felt the heat... maybe dull red, but hotter than normal.
On seeing Antoinette's response to Tim's message, I dove in to see
what caused the dust up. For a moment, I thought I'd missed a
message because I didn't find anything Tim wrote to be offensive.
In my own limited personal experience, I'll add my own anecdotal
corroboration. I began throwing with stoneware... porcelain had a
whispered mystique... too hard to work with, cracks when drying,
slumps, plucks, yadda, yadda, yadda. One summer about two years in,
I took a class at our local community college and the instructor was
a porcelain junkie, although not thrown. She said "Try it!" I did,
and had zero problems. Zero. To this day I cannot find what the big
deal is. I love how vivid glaze colors are, how smooth pots are, and
I find it a pleasure to work with. Maybe I can't put wet pots on my
wood stove with as good results as with a groggy stoneware body, but
sheesh!
Regards,
Maurice, still here in California, but only barely. We bought a
house in New Paltz and will be moving in really soon. But first I
gotta finish packing and loading them containers.
Lee Love on fri 27 jun 08
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Maurice Weitman wrote:
> Greetings, folks,
> I took a class at our local community college and the instructor was
> a porcelain junkie, although not thrown. She said "Try it!" I did,
> and had zero problems. Zero. To this day I cannot find what the big
> deal is. I love how vivid glaze colors are, how smooth pots are, and
> I find it
I took to it easily too. If you learn proper technique, it
shouldn't be a problem.
I frequently change from stoneware, to porcelain, to white
stoneware to earthenare.
--
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
Kim Hohlmayer on mon 30 jun 08
My turn to weigh in on this one with a funny story. I worked with a very talented potter who tried to convince everyone that working in porcelain was a religious experience and not to be entered into lightly. Okay, it is a wonderful and special material with its own set of rules. But a religious experience that only the most talented and dedicated potters should enter into? And yes, he was dead serious!
I love porcelain. It does work differently but it certainly should not be some restricted holy element. To me it's like the old Alka Seltzer
ad about "Try it. You'll like it." That is my two cents worth. --Kim H.
--- On Fri, 6/27/08, Lee Love wrote:
> From: Lee Love
> Subject: Re: Lets continue the conversation: stoneware and porcelain
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 6:47 PM
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Maurice Weitman
> wrote:
> > Greetings, folks,
>
> > I took a class at our local community college and the
> instructor was
> > a porcelain junkie, although not thrown. She said
> "Try it!" I did,
> > and had zero problems. Zero. To this day I cannot
> find what the big
> > deal is. I love how vivid glaze colors are, how
> smooth pots are, and
> > I find it
>
> I took to it easily too. If you learn proper
> technique, it
> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I frequently change from stoneware, to porcelain, to
> white
> stoneware to earthenare.
>
> --
> 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
Christine Campbell on tue 1 jul 08
Kim wrote -=20
> I worked with a very talented potter=20
> who tried to convince everyone that=20
> working in porcelain was a religious=20
> experience and not to be entered into=20
> lightly ....=20
> And yes, he was dead serious!
How tedious and pretentious to take one's self=20
so seriously!
This is the kind of thinking that slows down=20
the learning curve ... maybe even sends it into=20
negative territory. Definitely sucks the joy=20
out of the creative process.
Porcelain is a material.
More challenging sometimes ... less forgiving.
But still just a raw material.
Cast it. Throw it. Hand build with it.=20
Texture & Carve it. Alter it. Add stuff to it.
COLOR it for sure!
But do not put it onto a pedestal.
The Diva called 'porcelain' likes to play.
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Have some images from my latest workshop on=20
my site ... take a peek at the fun we had.
--
Chris Campbell Pottery LLC
9417 Koupela Drive
Raleigh NC 27615-2233
Designs in Colored Porcelain
1-800-652-1008
Fax : 919-676-2062
website: www.ccpottery.com
wholesale : www.wholesalecrafts.com
May Luk on wed 2 jul 08
Hello everyone;
Some people are just more dramatic than others, isn't it?
In handbuilding, there is a much shorter window to work in porcelain. if it=
's too wet, it gets floppy. It can be good to work with after a while, then=
it just turn very short all of a sudden. I know that whatever I do after t=
hat, the joint is going to crack. Porcelain slab does not stand on its own =
but stoneware can in most cases. I like it, it feels very nice in the hand=
with cheese hard porcelain. I never dare to push it, my hand-built teapot =
used to take over a month to dry. This was my British porcelain experience.
I do not have any American experience with Standard Grolleg {259?} in hand =
building. The weather is so dry here in New York. I never have the inclinat=
ion. Also, I can only go into the studio 2 days a week. I don't have the ti=
me to nurse it. I am making Grolleg (hate that word, can't pronounce it) pa=
per clay, but I am not sure of the quality. It is very grey. It is definite=
ly not top grade.
Everybody is talking about Jingdezhen. After I read the Jingdezhen porcelai=
n book from Chinese Clay Art. It tuned out I've been using the Jingdezhen p=
orcelain bowls and plates all my life. The ones with the translucent rice p=
atterns. I know the Chinese characters of Jingdezhen but I don't know how =
to read Mandarin translated in English. So I didn't know what everybody was=
talking about.
The Chinese porcelain is what I consider the traditional porcelain because =
that's what I know. [and it's Chinese like me, why not?] But then again, th=
ere are different grades of porcelain, the cheap export everyday wares and =
the precious ones from the imperial kilns - the kind that literati wrote ro=
mantic poems about. If there are different grades of porcelain in China, th=
en different porcelain clays formulated from different regions are quite al=
right. Like, ham, wine and a lot of food stuff. Different regions makes the=
ir own version. It's a good thing.
Regards
May
Kings County NY
> Kim wrote -=20
>=20
> > I worked with a very talented potter=20
> > who tried to convince everyone that=20
> > working in porcelain was a religious=20
> > experience and not to be entered into=20
> > lightly ....=20
> > And yes, he was dead serious!
>=20
[...]=0A=0A=0A _______________________________________________________=
___=0ANot happy with your email address?.=0AGet the one you really want - m=
illions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo=
.com/ymail/new.html
| |
|
