John on sat 19 jul 08
I would just like to announce that Polly Beach has been selected as an =
honorary lifetime member of the Glaze Free-Trade Society for her =
excellent response to John Hesselberth's letter in the Clay Times!
Thanks,
John Britt
www.johnbrittpottery.com/wks.htm
http://ncclayclub.blogspot.com/
Lee Love on sun 20 jul 08
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:40 PM, John wrote:
> I would just like to announce that Polly Beach has been selected as an honorary
>lifetime member of the Glaze Free-Trade Society for her excellent response to John
>Hesselberth's letter in the Clay Times!
Can the letter be read online?
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Taylor Hendrix on mon 21 jul 08
Yeah Yeah Yeah. Three cheers for the cheap shot. Yipee. Let's give a
medal to Clay Times for it's fabulously orchestrated editorial flim
flam. Wahoo. Let's call the medal the Rush Limbaugh Medal and let's
give it to all such startling examples of fair play which twinkle from
the firmament of Clay Times. Yepper, let's do that.
Let me get this straight. John sends an email to CT stating the name
of an unattributed glaze appearing in the last issue is "glossy clear
liner glaze" as it appears in his book. This letter as printed is
short, to the point, and lacks any accusatory tone.
What CT gives us is a defensive response that does little to answer
John's comment and much to call into question the real point for
publishing this little tit and tat.
Someone want to tell me when it became CT editorial policy to publish
personal letters from editors to contributors? Is it EDITOR'S letters
now? How seriously are we to take any further comments from Polly
Beach or Clay Times editors on this issue when we read such
incredulous offers to "check any of the recipes we plan to publish"
against a John H database? Certainly you have contributor guidelines
which cover this point. In your submission guidelines, what the h...
does "Original or modified glaze recipes" mean exactly?
How about next time CT wants to put Mr. uppity John Hesselberth in his
place or correct a misconception, they do it with a little more class
and leave the political bull sh.. for around the water cooler.
Taylor, in Rockport TX
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:40 PM, John wrote:
> I would just like to announce that Polly Beach has been selected as an honorary lifetime member of the Glaze Free-Trade Society for her excellent response to John Hesselberth's letter in the Clay Times!
..
joyce on mon 21 jul 08
Taylor said:
'How about next time CT wants to put Mr. uppity John Hesselberth in his
place or correct a misconception, they do it with a little more class
and leave the political bull sh.. for around the water cooler."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Taylor, for bringing this exchange from publisher to the writer,
said writer who
was only responding (correctly) in the Letters To The Editor section of
Clay Times.
I have long admired Polly Beach's courage and professionalism as she
handles the myriad details of presenting (and growing) what is becoming
a noteworthy pub for all of us who are laboring to be part of this great
community of artists/craftspersons. Her personal stamp permeates
Clay Times which is normally a Great Plus.
However, her letter apparently attempting to undermine John Hesselberth's
simple and (as Taylor pointed out) non-accusatory e-mail to the editor
of CT lacks the professionalism and objectivity expected from an
editor. Is it possible Mr. H.'s comment didn't receive a rash of negative
reaction from Ms B.'s readers....... so the editor (The Editor!)
felt compelled to get the message out there even if it had to come from
her own poisoned pen??
It is clear to me that, in this case, Mr. Hesselberth is the only writer who
is behaving with class. Actually, I expect this from Mr. H. for he (and
his co-writer) Ron Roy are both Class Acts. I also expect such from
Ms Beach and am disappointed that it wasn't forthcoming.
I know what Mama Luce would say: "Be cautious when you attempt to
denigrate another's perspective........ for what you say may well reflect
more on you than on your target." In this instance, the publication
suffers and that is a shame.
Mama L. would also say: "Choose those you wish to slay wisely for
they may not stand alone... and you could become the target for your
own Words You Wish You'd Never Written."
Joyce
In the Mojave Desert of California U.S.A.
John on mon 21 jul 08
Taylor,
The first thing is that Polly was right to publish the letter because it =
is so well stated.=20
"...the glaze field has been open and sharing for a long time; we are =
now being asked not to share unless the glaze recipe is researched, =
origination source discovered , and credit given?
I would guess that a large percentage of the glaze recipes published =
anywhere these days originate somewhere other than with the potter who =
contributes the recipe for publication. I truly believe that, as a =
potting community we're honest folks and if we misstep in crediting a =
glaze recipe to whomever it's not done vengefully or knowingly."
So claiming "Glaze Credit Where Credit is Due" and listing the page in =
the book is childish. (at best, it could be called a good advertising.) =
If he was classy he would not have written in anything. Secondly, he =
would not have listed the page number. Does Val Cushing write in letters =
to every publication, every time his glazes are wrongly attributed? He =
did not even say anything when his glaze was, and still is, called St. =
John's Black. Of course not, that is classy!
These glazes are coming out in print and John cannot control how =
potters' use, talk or write about them. The funny part is that in the =
same issue Annie Chrietzberg published :
Mushy Peas cone 6
20 % Frit 3195
29% Wollasonite
4 % Nepheline Syenite
30 % Old Hickory #1
17% Silica
Add: 4% Copper Carbonate
6% Rutile
This is a revision glaze from Ron and John's book, the very same glaze =
that they forbade us to talk about on Clayart. But they can't stop =
non-copy righted material from being used in journals.=20
Is the ban lifted on writing the MC6 Glazes on Clayart?=20
The are all out there anyway.=20
Secondly, the problem is that John Hesselberth is incorrect. The glaze =
"Cone 6 Clear" is published in Ian Currie's excellent book, "Revealing =
Glazes" which was published in 2002 (if I recall correctly). This is =
prior to MC6G. I don't remember the page number ..somewhere around pg. =
92?? it was in the section on Safety and lead. It was called "Clear =
Cone 6" and it was in a matt section. Maybe someone can look it up?
In that piece John submitted, he correctly credited Tony Hansen with the =
original recipe 5 x 20 which in his words, (I am paraphrasing) "I added =
a little talc to." So is John crediting Tony every time he publishes a =
recipe as Tony's Revised Cone 6 Clear?
Classy would be to lift the Clayart ban!
Thanks,
John Britt
www.johnbrittpottery.com/wks.htm
http://ncclayclub.blogspot.com/
Tony Ferguson on mon 21 jul 08
Does anyone have a link to the article? I would like to read what is going on here.
Tony Ferguson
joyce wrote: Taylor said:
'How about next time CT wants to put Mr. uppity John Hesselberth in his
place or correct a misconception, they do it with a little more class
and leave the political bull sh.. for around the water cooler."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Taylor, for bringing this exchange from publisher to the writer,
said writer who
was only responding (correctly) in the Letters To The Editor section of
Clay Times.
I have long admired Polly Beach's courage and professionalism as she
handles the myriad details of presenting (and growing) what is becoming
a noteworthy pub for all of us who are laboring to be part of this great
community of artists/craftspersons. Her personal stamp permeates
Clay Times which is normally a Great Plus.
However, her letter apparently attempting to undermine John Hesselberth's
simple and (as Taylor pointed out) non-accusatory e-mail to the editor
of CT lacks the professionalism and objectivity expected from an
editor. Is it possible Mr. H.'s comment didn't receive a rash of negative
reaction from Ms B.'s readers....... so the editor (The Editor!)
felt compelled to get the message out there even if it had to come from
her own poisoned pen??
It is clear to me that, in this case, Mr. Hesselberth is the only writer who
is behaving with class. Actually, I expect this from Mr. H. for he (and
his co-writer) Ron Roy are both Class Acts. I also expect such from
Ms Beach and am disappointed that it wasn't forthcoming.
I know what Mama Luce would say: "Be cautious when you attempt to
denigrate another's perspective........ for what you say may well reflect
more on you than on your target." In this instance, the publication
suffers and that is a shame.
Mama L. would also say: "Choose those you wish to slay wisely for
they may not stand alone... and you could become the target for your
own Words You Wish You'd Never Written."
Joyce
In the Mojave Desert of California U.S.A.
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
Lee Love on mon 21 jul 08
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Taylor Hendrix wrote:
> Let me get this straight. John sends an email to CT stating the name
> of an unattributed glaze appearing in the last issue is "glossy clear
> liner glaze" as it appears in his book.
You know, if these glazes circulated more freely, as is standard
practice, it probably wouldn't have been published unattributed. It
would sell more books too!
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Taylor Hendrix on tue 22 jul 08
John:
The point of my response was CT's poor treatment of John, not whether
John's letter did or did not have merit. The fact that people are
talking about the selling of books on this thread highlights the
difficulty some people seem to have with focusing on the issue at hand
and not letting past history cloud the discussion.
I have no beef with rebuttal letters being posted concurrently. That
is common practice. People should be allowed to respond with their 2
cents. What I do have a problem with, and what Joyce understood, is
the buck and change rebuttal cum thinly veiled admonition to John.
Some on this list have made the same assumptions as did the author of
the reply and the justification for those assumptions is not borne out
by anything in John's letter as published.
Nowhere in John's letter does he say "you can't share that recipe."
Nowhere in John's letter does he accuse the artist of pilfering his
glaze recipe.
And this is important, John, nowhere in John's letter does he even
imply banning anything.
It is obvious that Polly edited out portions of the rebuttal letter.
That too is standard procedure, but can you tell me why instead of
ending with the portion that pertains directly to John's request, she
includes portions which SEEM TO ME to mischaracterize John's request?
To what purpose? Surly not to illuminate John's request or the
writer's record-keeping habits.
While I have no idea what subject line John sent his email under,
titles of letters to the editor and such are of editorial origin not
necessarily from the letter writer. John's citing of chapter and verse
is just good practice and a consideration for those of us who would
like to make our own evaluations.
Regarding the ubiquitous 5x20 glaze. You should note that John and Ron
did give credit for the 5x20 glaze in their book.
If I have done my own misintrepretation Of CT's or Ms. Beach's
purposes by adding a few jots here and there, I am sorry and I will
apologize. My feeling, however, is that I have at the most growled a
bit too much and at the very least failed to knock some sense into a
few ClayArt Boneheads.
The struggle continues...
Taylor, in Rockport TX
Taylor Hendrix on tue 22 jul 08
Hey Lee:
Ya know, attribution of a glaze does not of necessity make it any less
free to circulate. A subtle point perhaps, but this particular glaze
in question has already circulated quite freely in the latest number
of CT.
And how does this follow? <is standard practice, it probably wouldn't have been published
unattributed>>
Taylor, in Rockport TX
Lee Love on tue 22 jul 08
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Taylor Hendrix wrote:
> Hey Lee:
>
> Ya know, attribution of a glaze does not of necessity make it any less
> free to circulate.
There is no copyright on recipes. Especially ones that you lift from
other people.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Ron Roy on tue 29 jul 08
What Britt does not mention is the fact that John shared his glazes so they
would be available to everyone reading Ian's book. He was talking about
stability and adding to our general knowlege of glazes. He thinks stability
is an important aspect of glazes for potters making functional work - and
so does Ian.
I would say John was being very classy - and continues to be. Visit his web
site and see what a sharing person he is.
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
RR
John Britt said
The glaze "Cone 6 Clear" is published in Ian Currie's excellent book,
"Revealing Glazes" which was published in 2002 (if I recall correctly).
This is prior to MC6G. I don't remember the page number ..somewhere around
pg. 92?? it was in the section on Safety and lead. It was called "Clear
Cone 6" and it was in a matt section. Maybe someone can look it up?
Ron Roy
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Tony Ferguson on tue 29 jul 08
I am somewhat confused here. Is the cone 6 clear glaze John's or Ian's creation? Whose was first? And depending on that was, in each book, the original creator of the glaze given credit? I am trying to understand where the conflict is.
Tony Ferguson
Ron Roy wrote: What Britt does not mention is the fact that John shared his glazes so they
would be available to everyone reading Ian's book. He was talking about
stability and adding to our general knowlege of glazes. He thinks stability
is an important aspect of glazes for potters making functional work - and
so does Ian.
I would say John was being very classy - and continues to be. Visit his web
site and see what a sharing person he is.
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
RR
John Britt said
The glaze "Cone 6 Clear" is published in Ian Currie's excellent book,
"Revealing Glazes" which was published in 2002 (if I recall correctly).
This is prior to MC6G. I don't remember the page number ..somewhere around
pg. 92?? it was in the section on Safety and lead. It was called "Clear
Cone 6" and it was in a matt section. Maybe someone can look it up?
Ron Roy
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
John Post on tue 29 jul 08
To me Mastering Cone 6 glazes is more a book about the firing process
at cone 6 than just a book of glaze recipes. There aren't that many
recipes in it compared to other glaze books on the market. The
philosophy and approach to making stable glazes is what makes this
book an important one.
The recipes in the book are quite useless without the controlled
cooling firing profiles, fit testing, clay body information etc.
Of course one could say the same thing about copper red glazes or
carbon trap shino glazes. Those glazes have been discussed freely
along with the relevant information relating to firing cycles of those
glazes.
I believe that that is what John Britt and Lee have been advocating
about the recipes in MC6G. That they be discussed openly in the same
manner as other glazes have been on clayart. John Hesselberth pointed
out how widely the glazes have already traveled in an earlier post.
Does keeping them off of clayart serve any purpose at this point?
(I have John Britt's book, Ron Roy's and John Hesselberth's book and
both Ian Currie books. I consider them all valuable reference books,
more about the process and principles of glaze making and firing, than
as recipe or cookbooks full of glazes.)
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
On Jul 29, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ron Roy wrote:
> What Britt does not mention is the fact that John shared his glazes
> so they
> would be available to everyone reading Ian's book. He was talking
> about
> stability and adding to our general knowlege of glazes. He thinks
> stability
> is an important aspect of glazes for potters making functional work
> - and
> so does Ian.
>
> I would say John was being very classy - and continues to be. Visit
> his web
> site and see what a sharing person he is.
>
> http://www.frogpondpottery.com
>
> RR
>
>
>
>
> John Britt said
>
> The glaze "Cone 6 Clear" is published in Ian Currie's excellent book,
> "Revealing Glazes" which was published in 2002 (if I recall
> correctly).
> This is prior to MC6G. I don't remember the page number ..somewhere
> around
> pg. 92?? it was in the section on Safety and lead. It was called
> "Clear
> Cone 6" and it was in a matt section. Maybe someone can look it up?
| |
|
