Antoinette Badenhorst on thu 17 jul 08
Dear Paul, the minute I started reading your e-mail, I started smiling, since I knew where you were heading. I wonder if you missed all the discussions about porcelain a few weeks ago. About 8 years back we had similar discussions. You will find them in the archives. At this stage I think it is time to say that we agree to disagree, but I know it will not happen, since it will come up again and again, just as the subject about what is art and what is craft.
When we were in school in the seventies in South Africa the regular debates was about long or short hair for men. Time was the only thing that cured the debate. Today both hairstyles are acceptable. I think the same will happen with the debates about porcelain.
I also experienced it that the purists tried to keep certain words from the language. Once words found its way into the public mouth, there is normally no way to stop that. I think the same thing is happening with porcelain. If it is made from porcelain clay, it is considered porcelain. I can go back and bring out all the examples that I have, but you can do yourself a favor and read Peter Lane's book about Studio Porcelain or Contemporary Porcelain. Lane is one of the worlds biggest authorities on porcelain.
As far as my own work is concerned; I worked in pit fired porcelain as well as the traditionally real thing. I work mostly with Southern Ice these days. Both has its challenges and both has its special characteristic.
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Paul Herman
> Hello Antoinette and Petetree,
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade, but in order for something to be
> described as "porcelain" it needs to be fired to the point of being
> vitreous. There are no options that include low firing and porosity.
> In other words, low fired porcelain clay bodies do not qualify as
> porcelain.
>
> I love a good dictionary, and a friend just gave me a new one. It's
> three volumes, and a very beautiful and finely made set of books.
> Let's do some nit-picking here.
>
> From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged 1993
> edition:
>
> porcelain
>
> 1 a : a hard, fine-grained, non porous , sonorous and usually
> translucent and white ceramic ware, that has a hard paste body, is
> fired at a high temperature, and is used especially for table and
> ornamental wares, industrial wares, and especially formerly for dentures
>
> b : soft paste
>
> 2 : an article of porcelain
>
>
> Please note the emphasis on high firing temperature and non-porosity.
> Soft paste is fired lower, but still vitreous. It would be good to use
> some other description for low fired porous wares. In fact, low fired
> porcelain clay bodies are "white earthenware" as far as I can see.
>
> The etymology of the word porcelain is quite remarkable, and if anyone
> is interested, I'll dig deeper, and ramble on some more.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul Herman
>
> Great Basin Pottery
> Doyle, California US
> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>
> > Petetree, there are very few firing methods that is not suitable for
> > porcelain. Some porcelains has to be adjusted to get good results in
> > certain fires. Naked raku is a perfect option for porcelain since
> > porcelain brings out texture so well.
> >
> > I would suggest that you bisque fire higher(at least to^ 05 or even
> > higher...be careful for the maturing of the clay)) so that the clay
> > is more durable for the "rough" handling in the raku kiln. Pay
> > special attention to even thicknesses of the walls and foot and keep
> > your fire evenly throughout. You might loose some in the beginning,
> > but as you get more skilled with it, your successes will grow. Keep
> > us informed with your progress.
> >
> > --
> > Antoinette Badenhorst
Paul Herman on thu 17 jul 08
Dear Antoinette,
Well, I went and looked in Hamer and Hamer's dictionary and they agree
that porcelain is vitreous and usually white and translucent. They
don't say anything about low fired or porous porcelain.
I don't have Peter Lane's porcelain book in my library, and will look
for a copy to peruse, but I did find this review of it on the Ceramics
Today website. It's here: http://www.ceramicstoday.com/articles/091597.htm
A quote from the review is revealing.
> Of interest here is the departure by some porcelain artists from
the traditional interpretation of porcelain as a white, translucent,
vessel oriented material <
So, I will continue to hold Webster's definition as being more
credible than that of "some porcelain artists" who are busily
departing tradition. To include low fired white ware as porcelain is
so all encompassing, and so muddying of the definition as to render it
meaningless. Is a low fired white talc body porcelain also?
I submit to you that the all encompassing definition has NOT found
it's way into the public's mouth, but remains restricted to a few low
fire earthenware artists who want to call their work porcelain. That's
not entirely honest, and will lead to the public being suspicious of
all porcelain makers, and just what it is they make.
For what it's worth, the porcelain I make is all high fired to cone
ten and above. I've tried the Southern Ice clay, and it came out dead
white after wood firing, with no color at all from the ash. It's a
very unique clay.
best wishes,
Paul Herman
Great Basin Pottery
Doyle, California US
www.greatbasinpottery.com/
On Jul 16, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
> Dear Paul, the minute I started reading your e-mail, I started
> smiling, since I knew where you were heading. I wonder if you missed
> all the discussions about porcelain a few weeks ago. About 8 years
> back we had similar discussions. You will find them in the archives.
> At this stage I think it is time to say that we agree to disagree,
> but I know it will not happen, since it will come up again and
> again, just as the subject about what is art and what is craft.
>
> When we were in school in the seventies in South Africa the regular
> debates was about long or short hair for men. Time was the only
> thing that cured the debate. Today both hairstyles are acceptable. I
> think the same will happen with the debates about porcelain.
>
> I also experienced it that the purists tried to keep certain words
> from the language. Once words found its way into the public mouth,
> there is normally no way to stop that. I think the same thing is
> happening with porcelain. If it is made from porcelain clay, it is
> considered porcelain. I can go back and bring out all the examples
> that I have, but you can do yourself a favor and read Peter Lane's
> book about Studio Porcelain or Contemporary Porcelain. Lane is one
> of the worlds biggest authorities on porcelain.
>
> As far as my own work is concerned; I worked in pit fired porcelain
> as well as the traditionally real thing. I work mostly with Southern
> Ice these days. Both has its challenges and both has its special
> characteristic.
>
> --
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> www.clayandcanvas.com
> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Paul Herman
>> Hello Antoinette and Petetree,
>>
>> Sorry to rain on your parade, but in order for something to be
>> described as "porcelain" it needs to be fired to the point of being
>> vitreous. There are no options that include low firing and porosity.
>> In other words, low fired porcelain clay bodies do not qualify as
>> porcelain.
>>
>> I love a good dictionary, and a friend just gave me a new one. It's
>> three volumes, and a very beautiful and finely made set of books.
>> Let's do some nit-picking here.
>>
>> From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged 1993
>> edition:
>>
>> porcelain
>>
>> 1 a : a hard, fine-grained, non porous , sonorous and usually
>> translucent and white ceramic ware, that has a hard paste body, is
>> fired at a high temperature, and is used especially for table and
>> ornamental wares, industrial wares, and especially formerly for
>> dentures
>>
>> b : soft paste
>>
>> 2 : an article of porcelain
>>
>>
>> Please note the emphasis on high firing temperature and non-porosity.
>> Soft paste is fired lower, but still vitreous. It would be good to
>> use
>> some other description for low fired porous wares. In fact, low fired
>> porcelain clay bodies are "white earthenware" as far as I can see.
>>
>> The etymology of the word porcelain is quite remarkable, and if
>> anyone
>> is interested, I'll dig deeper, and ramble on some more.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Paul Herman
>>
>> Great Basin Pottery
>> Doyle, California US
>> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>>
>>> Petetree, there are very few firing methods that is not suitable for
>>> porcelain. Some porcelains has to be adjusted to get good results in
>>> certain fires. Naked raku is a perfect option for porcelain since
>>> porcelain brings out texture so well.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that you bisque fire higher(at least to^ 05 or even
>>> higher...be careful for the maturing of the clay)) so that the clay
>>> is more durable for the "rough" handling in the raku kiln. Pay
>>> special attention to even thicknesses of the walls and foot and keep
>>> your fire evenly throughout. You might loose some in the beginning,
>>> but as you get more skilled with it, your successes will grow. Keep
>>> us informed with your progress.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Antoinette Badenhorst
>
Eva Gallagher on fri 18 jul 08
Hi - The composition of porcelain is such that it results in
vitirfication/translucency when high fired. And that's unique to porcelain
clays.
For low fired work you can use many different clay compositions - even porc
clay. But how does porc clay differ from other low fired clays after low
firing ? Perhaps in colour response? All clays often will vary in colour
repsonse not only with pitfired/low fired work but at other temps as well.
So that characteristic is not unique to porc. I have several clays that I
fire to Cone 10 with the same glaze yet they all look different.
Yes porc clay may throw/handle differently, but then so do many clays. So
that characteritistic is not unique to porc clay. So the only thing unique
to porc is vitirfication/translucency.
So to call low fired porc clay porc is totally meaningless and fraudulent.
Just like calling a pit fired pot made from a stoneware clay - stoneware.
People just do not do it - it would be silly.
Some people seem to think that there is something elitist about porc and
cling to the term no matter what - but each clay eathernware, stoneware etc
has its own learning curve and deserves respect. My 2 cents.
Eva Gallagher
Deep River, Ontario
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Herman"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: porcelain firing options/Paul
> Dear Antoinette,
>
> Well, I went and looked in Hamer and Hamer's dictionary and they agree
> that porcelain is vitreous and usually white and translucent. They
> don't say anything about low fired or porous porcelain.
>
> I don't have Peter Lane's porcelain book in my library, and will look
> for a copy to peruse, but I did find this review of it on the Ceramics
> Today website. It's here: http://www.ceramicstoday.com/articles/091597.htm
>
> A quote from the review is revealing.
>
> > Of interest here is the departure by some porcelain artists from
> the traditional interpretation of porcelain as a white, translucent,
> vessel oriented material <
>
> So, I will continue to hold Webster's definition as being more
> credible than that of "some porcelain artists" who are busily
> departing tradition. To include low fired white ware as porcelain is
> so all encompassing, and so muddying of the definition as to render it
> meaningless. Is a low fired white talc body porcelain also?
>
> I submit to you that the all encompassing definition has NOT found
> it's way into the public's mouth, but remains restricted to a few low
> fire earthenware artists who want to call their work porcelain. That's
> not entirely honest, and will lead to the public being suspicious of
> all porcelain makers, and just what it is they make.
>
> For what it's worth, the porcelain I make is all high fired to cone
> ten and above. I've tried the Southern Ice clay, and it came out dead
> white after wood firing, with no color at all from the ash. It's a
> very unique clay.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Paul Herman
>
> Great Basin Pottery
> Doyle, California US
> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>
>> Dear Paul, the minute I started reading your e-mail, I started
>> smiling, since I knew where you were heading. I wonder if you missed
>> all the discussions about porcelain a few weeks ago. About 8 years
>> back we had similar discussions. You will find them in the archives.
>> At this stage I think it is time to say that we agree to disagree,
>> but I know it will not happen, since it will come up again and
>> again, just as the subject about what is art and what is craft.
>>
>> When we were in school in the seventies in South Africa the regular
>> debates was about long or short hair for men. Time was the only
>> thing that cured the debate. Today both hairstyles are acceptable. I
>> think the same will happen with the debates about porcelain.
>>
>> I also experienced it that the purists tried to keep certain words
>> from the language. Once words found its way into the public mouth,
>> there is normally no way to stop that. I think the same thing is
>> happening with porcelain. If it is made from porcelain clay, it is
>> considered porcelain. I can go back and bring out all the examples
>> that I have, but you can do yourself a favor and read Peter Lane's
>> book about Studio Porcelain or Contemporary Porcelain. Lane is one
>> of the worlds biggest authorities on porcelain.
>>
>> As far as my own work is concerned; I worked in pit fired porcelain
>> as well as the traditionally real thing. I work mostly with Southern
>> Ice these days. Both has its challenges and both has its special
>> characteristic.
>>
>> --
>> Antoinette Badenhorst
>> www.clayandcanvas.com
>> www.studiopottery.co.uk
>>
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: Paul Herman
>>> Hello Antoinette and Petetree,
>>>
>>> Sorry to rain on your parade, but in order for something to be
>>> described as "porcelain" it needs to be fired to the point of being
>>> vitreous. There are no options that include low firing and porosity.
>>> In other words, low fired porcelain clay bodies do not qualify as
>>> porcelain.
>>>
>>> I love a good dictionary, and a friend just gave me a new one. It's
>>> three volumes, and a very beautiful and finely made set of books.
>>> Let's do some nit-picking here.
>>>
>>> From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged 1993
>>> edition:
>>>
>>> porcelain
>>>
>>> 1 a : a hard, fine-grained, non porous , sonorous and usually
>>> translucent and white ceramic ware, that has a hard paste body, is
>>> fired at a high temperature, and is used especially for table and
>>> ornamental wares, industrial wares, and especially formerly for
>>> dentures
>>>
>>> b : soft paste
>>>
>>> 2 : an article of porcelain
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note the emphasis on high firing temperature and non-porosity.
>>> Soft paste is fired lower, but still vitreous. It would be good to
>>> use
>>> some other description for low fired porous wares. In fact, low fired
>>> porcelain clay bodies are "white earthenware" as far as I can see.
>>>
>>> The etymology of the word porcelain is quite remarkable, and if
>>> anyone
>>> is interested, I'll dig deeper, and ramble on some more.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Paul Herman
>>>
>>> Great Basin Pottery
>>> Doyle, California US
>>> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
>>>
>
Antoinette Badenhorst on fri 18 jul 08
Paul, here are a few names that you can google ans see what comes up.
Gary Wornell
Gail Russel (USA)
Jean Paul Azais (France)
Mieke Everaet ( Belgium)
Lara Scobie(UK)
Paul Scott
Dorothy Feibleman and Judith de Vries
and my biggest favorite
Wil Broekema
http://www.cbkgroningen.nl/content.cfm?fuid=33&pid=15&nummer=79&id=108#
For balance sake I am adding the name of Bodil Manz(Denmark) and Angela Verdon(UK)
Notice how every one of these artists used different qualities offered by porcelain clay. It's like enjoying a person for his laughter, his seriousness and complexity, his innovation and silliness.....should I continue being lyrical?
Lastly you can see on my website how my previous work was pit fired (often times with terra sigilata) and lately is as translucent and often times as white as can be. Both challenged me beyond frustration and both gave me pleasure.
What do you think would happen to the world if everything stays stagnant? Every day people discover new uses for old products and are artists not some of the biggest inventors ever? In my book any medium used by artists only comes alive when the artist understand the medium and gets in harmony with the material. Is any white ware (earthenware clay) porcelain clay? No; you can just put the two materials next to each other in raw, bisque and finished stages to see the difference.
Therefore I will traditionally agree with you about the theory offered in all the quotes you gave( and offer you more), but will I feel forced to use it is that way.......?........nope, never!
--
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.studiopottery.co.uk
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Paul Herman
> Dear Antoinette,
>
> Well, I went and looked in Hamer and Hamer's dictionary and they agree
> that porcelain is vitreous and usually white and translucent. They
> don't say anything about low fired or porous porcelain.
>
> I don't have Peter Lane's porcelain book in my library, and will look
> for a copy to peruse, but I did find this review of it on the Ceramics
> Today website. It's here: http://www.ceramicstoday.com/articles/091597.htm
>
> A quote from the review is revealing.
>
> > Of interest here is the departure by some porcelain artists from
> the traditional interpretation of porcelain as a white, translucent,
> vessel oriented material <
>
> So, I will continue to hold Webster's definition as being more
> credible than that of "some porcelain artists" who are busily
> departing tradition. To include low fired white ware as porcelain is
> so all encompassing, and so muddying of the definition as to render it
> meaningless. Is a low fired white talc body porcelain also?
>
> I submit to you that the all encompassing definition has NOT found
> it's way into the public's mouth, but remains restricted to a few low
> fire earthenware artists who want to call their work porcelain. That's
> not entirely honest, and will lead to the public being suspicious of
> all porcelain makers, and just what it is they make.
>
> For what it's worth, the porcelain I make is all high fired to cone
> ten and above. I've tried the Southern Ice clay, and it came out dead
> white after wood firing, with no color at all from the ash. It's a
> very unique clay.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Paul Herman
>
> Great Basin Pottery
> Doyle, California US
> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul, the minute I started reading your e-mail, I started
> > smiling, since I knew where you were heading. I wonder if you missed
> > all the discussions about porcelain a few weeks ago. About 8 years
> > back we had similar discussions. You will find them in the archives.
> > At this stage I think it is time to say that we agree to disagree,
> > but I know it will not happen, since it will come up again and
> > again, just as the subject about what is art and what is craft.
> >
> > When we were in school in the seventies in South Africa the regular
> > debates was about long or short hair for men. Time was the only
> > thing that cured the debate. Today both hairstyles are acceptable. I
> > think the same will happen with the debates about porcelain.
> >
> > I also experienced it that the purists tried to keep certain words
> > from the language. Once words found its way into the public mouth,
> > there is normally no way to stop that. I think the same thing is
> > happening with porcelain. If it is made from porcelain clay, it is
> > considered porcelain. I can go back and bring out all the examples
> > that I have, but you can do yourself a favor and read Peter Lane's
> > book about Studio Porcelain or Contemporary Porcelain. Lane is one
> > of the worlds biggest authorities on porcelain.
> >
> > As far as my own work is concerned; I worked in pit fired porcelain
> > as well as the traditionally real thing. I work mostly with Southern
> > Ice these days. Both has its challenges and both has its special
> > characteristic.
> >
> > --
> > Antoinette Badenhorst
> > www.clayandcanvas.com
> > www.studiopottery.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Paul Herman
> >> Hello Antoinette and Petetree,
> >>
> >> Sorry to rain on your parade, but in order for something to be
> >> described as "porcelain" it needs to be fired to the point of being
> >> vitreous. There are no options that include low firing and porosity.
> >> In other words, low fired porcelain clay bodies do not qualify as
> >> porcelain.
> >>
> >> I love a good dictionary, and a friend just gave me a new one. It's
> >> three volumes, and a very beautiful and finely made set of books.
> >> Let's do some nit-picking here.
> >>
> >> From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged 1993
> >> edition:
> >>
> >> porcelain
> >>
> >> 1 a : a hard, fine-grained, non porous , sonorous and usually
> >> translucent and white ceramic ware, that has a hard paste body, is
> >> fired at a high temperature, and is used especially for table and
> >> ornamental wares, industrial wares, and especially formerly for
> >> dentures
> >>
> >> b : soft paste
> >>
> >> 2 : an article of porcelain
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note the emphasis on high firing temperature and non-porosity.
> >> Soft paste is fired lower, but still vitreous. It would be good to
> >> use
> >> some other description for low fired porous wares. In fact, low fired
> >> porcelain clay bodies are "white earthenware" as far as I can see.
> >>
> >> The etymology of the word porcelain is quite remarkable, and if
> >> anyone
> >> is interested, I'll dig deeper, and ramble on some more.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Paul Herman
> >>
> >> Great Basin Pottery
> >> Doyle, California US
> >> www.greatbasinpottery.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Antoinette Badenhorst wrote:
> >>
> >>> Petetree, there are very few firing methods that is not suitable for
> >>> porcelain. Some porcelains has to be adjusted to get good results in
> >>> certain fires. Naked raku is a perfect option for porcelain since
> >>> porcelain brings out texture so well.
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest that you bisque fire higher(at least to^ 05 or even
> >>> higher...be careful for the maturing of the clay)) so that the clay
> >>> is more durable for the "rough" handling in the raku kiln. Pay
> >>> special attention to even thicknesses of the walls and foot and keep
> >>> your fire evenly throughout. You might loose some in the beginning,
> >>> but as you get more skilled with it, your successes will grow. Keep
> >>> us informed with your progress.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Antoinette Badenhorst
> >
Paul Herman on fri 18 jul 08
Lee,
I use a white stoneware with 20% Helmer kaolin, and it makes great
flashing.
Have a great firing,
Paul Herman
Great Basin Pottery
Doyle, California US
www.greatbasinpottery.com/
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> I am using a new wood fire porcelain from Continental Clay. Has some
> Helmer's in it. Will fire it on the 23rd at the Northern Clay Center
> wood kiln at Jeff Oestrich's.
>
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
Vince Pitelka on fri 18 jul 08
This is one where there is very little flexibility. I think we have pretty
much accepted that vitreous pure white fine-grain cone 6 claybodies can be
called porcelain (even though it is outside the traditional definition), but
by no stretch of the imagination or the definition of the word can a
finished low-fired piece made from porcelain clay be called porcelain. It
is not porcelain in any way, and it is inappropriate to call it that,
because it confuses and subverts the actual meaning of the word. With a
little effort on all our part, we can help to keep the definition of
porcelain intact. Paul's message was perhaps more diplomatic than mine, but
we are both saying the same thing.
A piece is not porcelain just because it is made from a porcelain claybody.
It is porcelain because it is made from a porcelain claybody and then fired
in the appropriate way to transform it into porcelain. If something is made
from porcelain clay and then low-fired, it is white earthenware, as Paul
pointed out. It would be deceptive and misleading to call it porcelain.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lee Love on sat 19 jul 08
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> It is porcelain because it is made from a porcelain claybody and then fired
> in the appropriate way to transform it into porcelain.
Yeah. A purist would demand woodfiring. ;^)
What excites me about computer controls on a gas kiln is the
ability to program it to go through short cycle
oxidation/reduction/neutral. It really has a different effect on
clay and glazes.
--
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
Lee Love on sat 19 jul 08
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Herman
wrote:
> Lee,
>
> I use a white stoneware with 20% Helmer kaolin, and it makes great
> flashing.
>
Thanks!
I make some Bauer's slip, using Helmer as the kaolin.
--
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
| |
|
