David Hendley on sun 6 dec 09
Throwing sets of plates is a real bore to me. 12 flat things, all
the same. So, I've often had the thought that jiggering makes
sense. A little further thought, however, quickly dissuades me
of the idea.
First of all, how long does it take an experienced thrower to
throw a plate? Not long. I'm certainly not the fastest around
and don't even try to hurry, but I can throw 12 dinner plates
and 12 salad plates in 3 hours. Another 3 hours to trim them.
How long would jiggering take, half that?
In my mind, saving a couple of hours on a thousand dollar
set seems pretty chintzy and irrelevant.
Second, I don't WANT to spend a lot of time standing at
a machine making multiples of the same thing over and over.
I don't want to be known as a plate maker. Firing plates is
a pain, using lots of shelves and setters and upsetting the
flow of the kiln if too many are in the firing.
Most importantly, the main thing a studio potter has going
for him/herself is that the work is really handmade. You
are sabotaging your most important asset if you start using
industrial production methods.
Customers can, in their mind, now start comparing your
work and your prices with cheap imported ware.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
Lee Love on sun 6 dec 09
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hendley wrote:
> Most importantly, the main thing a studio potter has going
> for him/herself is that the work is really handmade.
Actually, if you give the surface a lot of attention, a jiggered plate
is very similar to an extruded form.
One of the advantages of plates supported by a form when you do
impression for inlay, is that the plaster form keeps distortion to a
minimum. I sat beside and I watched the retired Foreman do all of
Shimaoka's mold made platters.
Like an extruder, a lot depends on what you do with the
resulting form. It is up to you.
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Hank Murrow on sun 6 dec 09
On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:15 AM, David Hendley wrote:
>
> First of all, how long does it take an experienced thrower to
> throw a plate? Not long. I'm certainly not the fastest around
> and don't even try to hurry, but I can throw 12 dinner plates
> and 12 salad plates in 3 hours. Another 3 hours to trim them.
> How long would jiggering take, half that?
So far..... so good, David.
>
> Second, I don't WANT to spend a lot of time standing at
> a machine making multiples of the same thing over and over.
> I don't want to be known as a plate maker. Firing plates is
> a pain, using lots of shelves and setters and upsetting the
> flow of the kiln if too many are in the firing.
Here is where I disagree. If you have posts and shelves like mine,
and a kiln that lifts, Boy Howdy..... plates can be a dream........
my dream. In fact, my kiln was designed to easily accommodate plates
and other flatware.
> Most importantly, the main thing a studio potter has going
> for him/herself is that the work is really handmade. You
> are sabotaging your most important asset if you start using
> industrial production methods.
Now we are back on solid ground! The opportunity of 'changing your
mind', in any little or large way, at each moment of the studio day
is what drives me to do it these last 51 years. I could not do that
with jiggering. I should make a slide show showing how my plates have
grown each year since I began making them 45 years ago. When I
demonstrate my work, I often arrive at a new way of doing
things....... and that too keeps me 'in the game'.
Thanks David, for reminding me!
Cheers, Hank in Eugene
Lis Allison on sun 6 dec 09
On Sunday 06 December 2009, David Hendley wrote:
> First of all, how long does it take an experienced thrower to
> throw a plate? Not long. I'm certainly not the fastest around
> and don't even try to hurry, but I can throw 12 dinner plates
> and 12 salad plates in 3 hours. Another 3 hours to trim them.
> How long would jiggering take, half that?
> In my mind, saving a couple of hours on a thousand dollar
> set seems pretty chintzy and irrelevant.
>
> Second, I don't WANT to spend a lot of time standing at
> a machine making multiples of the same thing over and over.
> I don't want to be known as a plate maker. Firing plates is
> a pain, using lots of shelves and setters and upsetting the
> flow of the kiln if too many are in the firing.
>
> Most importantly, the main thing a studio potter has going
> for him/herself is that the work is really handmade. You
> are sabotaging your most important asset if you start using
> industrial production methods.
> Customers can, in their mind, now start comparing your
> work and your prices with cheap imported ware.
I've had some serious discussions with myself about these issues too.
First of all, no, it isn't fun. I don't like machines much and making
plates on a jigger (actually its a jolley, the jigger would be for making
bowls inside molds) is a dead bore. Making the slabs beforehand is also a
dead bore. Luckily my studio helper likes making slabs! With her making
the slabs and my jolleying the plates we can easily make 25 finished
plates in less than an hour. All they need when they come off the molds is
a quick wipe around the rim. But I don't use the machine for the speed, I
use it because it is the only way I can make plates that stack beautifully
and are affordable for the average buyer. Hand-thrown plates can be
wonderful, and look great set on the table, but just try to sell them to
the average buyer. The minute Ms. Shopper sees the wobbly stack they make
she moves on.
Of course, I don't get $1000 for a set of 12 plates....
And tell me this: how is using a jolley to make a plate on a plaster mold
different from making an oval platter on a plaster hump mold?
All tableware is always compared with cheap imported ware. The discerning
buyer compares them and comes to one conclusion, the non-discerning buyer
compares them and comes to the other conclusion. There are enough of the
first kind that I don't worry about the other kind.
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
www.Pine-Ridge-Studio.blogspot.com
tony clennell on sun 6 dec 09
Lee: Good point! How is that jiggered is not handmade and extruded
is? We make a few oval trays in plaster molds and the advantage as Lee
pointed out is that we can impress the rim with different wooden and
clay stamps or impress with paddles. We don't have room for a slab
roller so it is a rolling pin that we use.
As a thrower wheel work is faster for me than any other method of
making pots. I could throw as fast as I could jigger so I would only
do it if as Lee suggests it offered me an advantage. That advantage
would be stamping and impressing. The warping I reduced by cutting my
plates to a square shape.
I just had a customer with holes in her ears and those stretchers. The
hole was as big as the top of a styrofoam cup. A lovely young woman
but man it is hard not to look at those BIG ear lobes.
Cheers,
Tony
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hendley wrote=
=3D
:
>
>> Most importantly, the main thing a studio potter has going
>> for him/herself is that the work is really handmade.
>
> Actually, if you give the surface a lot of attention, a jiggered plate
> is very similar to an extruded form.
>
> One of the advantages of plates supported by a form when you do
> impression for inlay, is that the plaster form keeps distortion to a
> minimum. I sat beside and I watched the retired Foreman do all of
> Shimaoka's mold made platters.
>
> Like an extruder, a lot depends on what you do with the
> resulting form. It is up to you.
>
> --
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> "Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97t=
hat is, =3D
"The
> land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
> within itself." -- John O'Donohue
>
--=3D20
http://sourcherrypottery.com
http://smokieclennell.blogspot.com
Workshop Feb 5,6,7 Mudbucket Pottery
Myrtle Beach, SC
info@mudbucketpottery.com
Vince Pitelka on sun 6 dec 09
Lis Allison wrote -
"But I don't use the machine for the speed, I
use it because it is the only way I can make plates that stack beautifully
and are affordable for the average buyer. Hand-thrown plates can be
wonderful, and look great set on the table, but just try to sell them to
the average buyer. The minute Ms. Shopper sees the wobbly stack they make
she moves on."
Lis -
It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the product ceases to
be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies (jolly, jigger,
slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio artist needs to
consider very carefully. Your reasoning above is flawed, because it is jus=
t
a matter of careful and practiced throwing to make plates that stack
beautifully. In my cupboard I have a stack of 8 large dinner plates by Han=
k
Murrow, and a stack of 8 slightly smaller dinner plates by Paul Herman, and
in both cases the plates stack very even and stable. I did large amounts o=
f
dinnerware in production for years before I went to grad school, and it
never occurred me to use assisted technologies, because I was proud of the
fact that I could hand-throw the plates. I used a homemade throwing gauge
that allowed me to control the exact height and diameter of the rim, and my
plates stacked very nicely. In none of these cases was a stack of plates i=
n
any way "wobbly."
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lee Love on mon 7 dec 09
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM, James Freeman
wrote:
> What of the person who uses slip cast, jiggered, or even extruded forms a=
=3D
s a
> raw material; cutting, joining, and altering them to create a new object?
I agree James,
I alter thrown pieces to make square bottles like the
craftsman I sat next to, who used press molds to create the forms
Shmaoka decorated. I don't think my bottles that pay homage to the
molded bottles are somehow elevated just because they started as
thrown parts.
We need to stretch a little bit. It all comes down to two
things: that you are honest about the techniques you use, and that
the outcome is aesthetically successful.
How difficult is that to understand?
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Maurice Weitman on mon 7 dec 09
At 12:18 -0500 on 12/7/09, Lis Allison wrote:
>BTW, List people, what think ye of decals printed on inkjet printers??
Eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww, Lis! That's gross!!! I was hanging in there
with you while you got your jollies jiggering, but as the dude at the
opening of Putney Swope said (to the cop who asked "What the hell are
you doing with that white paint on the sidewalk?") "Ya gotta draw the
line somewhere."
Oh. Wait. I just found this rubric for determining the efficacious
viabilishishness of using decals printed with inkjet printers from
the Galactic Institute of Sticky-Sloped Dogma (SM):
Do you clean the printhead with a natural bristle brush?
Do you grow the ink in your own (or a near-relative's) ink farm?
Do you hand-crank (using a hand-made crank) your hand-built generator
to power the printer?
Do you put the decals on the slippery-sloped rim of your pots, or
only on the flat bottom where spontaneous movement is unlikely?
Do you clearly disclose (in handwritten script) on said decal that
"This visual instrument is an optical illusion printed on an inkjet
self-delusioner that may have derived its power from
cow-poop-made-methane"?
Six out of five correct answers will get you a free, one-year
subscription to clayart's evil twin: handmadeclaymyass.
(What's on the decals?)
Regards,
Maurice
Lis Allison on mon 7 dec 09
On Sunday 06 December 2009, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Lis Allison wrote -
> "But I don't use the machine for the speed, I
> use it because it is the only way I can make plates that stack
> beautifully and are affordable for the average buyer. Hand-thrown
> plates can be wonderful, and look great set on the table, but just try
> to sell them to the average buyer. The minute Ms. Shopper sees the
> wobbly stack they make she moves on."
>
> Lis -
> It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the product ceases
> to be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies (jolly,
> jigger, slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio artist
> needs to consider very carefully. Your reasoning above is flawed,
> because it is just a matter of careful and practiced throwing to make
> plates that stack beautifully. ......
May I respectfully point out that your reasoning is the flawed one? I did
say 'stack beautifully' by which I mean, stack as neatly as what the
average shopper expects, not what a potter might consider good, and
'affordable'. That is, 'stacking beautifully' plus 'affordable', together.
Not one or the other! My kind of customer will not pay $50 for one plate.
And yes, I agree it is a matter of skill, and no, I don't have that much
skill and I can't take a year off to get it. I do make hand-thrown plates,
but they are never as thin and light and flat, plus inexpensive, as the
jolleyed ones.
I certainly agree about the slippery slope. It's a matter of where you
draw the line, isn't it. My question about how jolleyed plates are
different from dishes built on a hump mold by hand is what determined it
for me. I decided that it was OK to make plates on the jolley, as it is
not in any real way different from using a hump mold to make a platter. I
do not call them hand-thrown, and I use the jolley only for plates. Making
bowls on the machine (ie jiggering them) would be on the wrong side of the
line for me.
Should I ever get skilled enough to make perfect plates, then I might
change my mind!
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
www.Pine-Ridge-Studio.blogspot.com
Randall Moody on mon 7 dec 09
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Lis Allison
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:08 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: jiggered plates
I certainly agree about the slippery slope. It's a matter of where you
draw the line, isn't it. My question about how jolleyed plates are
different from dishes built on a hump mold by hand is what determined it
for me. I decided that it was OK to make plates on the jolley, as it is
not in any real way different from using a hump mold to make a platter. I
do not call them hand-thrown, and I use the jolley only for plates. Making
bowls on the machine (ie jiggering them) would be on the wrong side of the
line for me.
-----------------
I am a bit confused on this but every book I have use jollying and jiggerin=
g
to mean the same process. Also, why would it be ok to use a mechanism to
create the profile of the exterior but not use the same mechanism to create
the profile of the interior? I realize that this is a personal choice that
you have made but I am interested in the reasoning behind making that
choice.
For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice and I
accept that others don't share it.
--Randall in Atlanta--
John Rodgers on mon 7 dec 09
If you apply the definition of "hand made" as being the hand that
directly forms the clay - the heel, the palm, the thumb, the fingers
directly touching, pushing, shoving , pulling, squeezing the clay - then
anything else is not handmade. If you allow that the hands are involved
in all the actions necessary to bring the clay to form and finish - then
that too, could be considered "hand made" It is between the two means
that the issue lies - what is hand made and what is not.
My $0.02??? At this point in my career - I don't give a poop! I do it
all - jigger, jolly, slab, mold, throw. I get it done! Do my customers
care? No! Why? Because real crux of the issue is whether the work and
the art is really my personal work or not. My pieces are mine - designed
by me, created by me, and they are happy to get a good story, a nice
piece of work and a chance to take home a bit of the artist to share
with others when there are guests.
Like I said ----
My $0.02!
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
Randall Moody wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Lis Allison
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:08 AM
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: jiggered plates
>
>
> I certainly agree about the slippery slope. It's a matter of where you
> draw the line, isn't it. My question about how jolleyed plates are
> different from dishes built on a hump mold by hand is what determined it
> for me. I decided that it was OK to make plates on the jolley, as it is
> not in any real way different from using a hump mold to make a platter. I
> do not call them hand-thrown, and I use the jolley only for plates. Makin=
g
> bowls on the machine (ie jiggering them) would be on the wrong side of th=
e
> line for me.
>
> -----------------
> I am a bit confused on this but every book I have use jollying and jigger=
ing
> to mean the same process. Also, why would it be ok to use a mechanism to
> create the profile of the exterior but not use the same mechanism to crea=
te
> the profile of the interior? I realize that this is a personal choice tha=
t
> you have made but I am interested in the reasoning behind making that
> choice.
> For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice and I
> accept that others don't share it.
>
>
> --Randall in Atlanta--
>
>
>
Lee Love on mon 7 dec 09
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Randall Moody wro=
=3D
te:
> For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice and I
> accept that others don't share it.
It all depends. You could argue that not all thrown things are
"handmade." check out this press mold plate:
http://www.puckergallery.com/GL1_enl.jpg
Though this was formed in a mold, the decoration
definitely makes it "hand made."
Most hand thrown plates leave a lot to desire. Just because
something is thrown, does not make it automatically divine.
Always, the proof is in the pudding.
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Lis Allison on mon 7 dec 09
On Monday 07 December 2009, Randall Moody wrote:
>
> -----------------
> I am a bit confused on this but every book I have use jollying and
> jiggering to mean the same process.
Yes, people do seem to talk about both processes as 'jiggering'. I am
trying to differentiate only because I don't want a true expert popping up
to tell me I am using the wrong word!
> Also, why would it be ok to use a
> mechanism to create the profile of the exterior but not use the same
> mechanism to create the profile of the interior? I realize that this is
> a personal choice that you have made but I am interested in the
> reasoning behind making that choice.
You are quite right. I didn't mean that jolleying is OK but jiggering is
not. I mean that a jolleyed plate, not advertised as hand-thrown, is
acceptable to me, but that a hand-thrown bowl is so much nicer than a
jiggered one that I can not accept it. Does that make sense? Maybe not,
but it is what I can live with.
> For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice and
> I accept that others don't share it.
Actually, I agree with you but have decided that offering not-hand-made
plates to go with my other pieces is OK, at least for me.
BTW, List people, what think ye of decals printed on inkjet printers??
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
www.Pine-Ridge-Studio.blogspot.com
Lee Love on mon 7 dec 09
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Lis Allison wrote:
>
> Actually, I agree with you but have decided that offering not-hand-made
> plates to go with my other pieces is OK, at least for me.
On the whole, jiggered plates function better than handmade ones.
Many handmade plates are to heavy.
To a large degree, plates are 2D objects, not far removed
from tiles or canvas. You can make nice curves from lip to middle,
and finish the feet nicely, but primarily, you are dealing with 2D.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
marci and rex on mon 7 dec 09
At 11:18 AM 12/7/2009, Lis Allison wrote:
>BTW, List people, what think ye of decals printed on inkjet printers??
My 2 cents for what its worth ! For me ,its all in the final
product ,....( as is even the whole "process "thing... Is
the plate jiggered and then dunked in a plain
old clear glaze? Yawn ! ...Is it jiggered and then maybe done
with something intriguing like a macro-crystalline glaze
or painted with majolica techniques... or even , clear glazed
and then china painted? .... For me, those are all now
hand done... and individual ... but they were all born the same way )
As for the decals, speaking as a chinapainter
with those prejudices firmly in place, we have classically
looked at decals as cheating... ( the difference between a plate
from ,say, China with a design on it that is a decal as opposed
to one that is hand painted... ) ... but lately I ve come to
change my tune.. Ive seen work were decals are a tool and just
part of the process like anything else... Eg: Garth
Johnson http://www.wondabread.com/ who not uses uses decals a
lot but also starts a lot
of his work using commercial collectible plates and
then alters those images with decals and chinapaint... There is
no denying that Garth's work is unique..
And for me,thats what it all comes down to : a unique vision ...
marci
KATHI LESUEUR on mon 7 dec 09
> I am a bit confused on this but every book I have use jollying and
> jiggering
> to mean the same process. Also, why would it be ok to use a
> mechanism to
> create the profile of the exterior but not use the same mechanism
> to create
> the profile of the interior? I realize that this is a personal
> choice that
> you have made but I am interested in the reasoning behind making that
> choice.
> For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice
> and I
> accept that others don't share it.
>
>
>
A number of years ago I had access to a RAM press. I had one die and
made multiple products from it. I found that customers, retail and
wholesale, really didn't care how it was made, just that they liked
it and could afford it. I found that the amount of time it took to
set up the machine and press fifty pieces was longer than the time it
took me to just throw them. I hand finished every pressed piece, so I
didn't even save trimming time. Ultimately, I think the deciding
factor for those exploring the use of "assisted technologies" is the
kiln capacity. You can spit out a lot of product with a RAM press or
a jiggering arm. But, if you don't have the kiln capacity it's a
waste. What I did like is that I found myself much freer to alter
basic forms that I'd pressed. In the end that afffected my treatment
of thrown pieces also. I still have no complaint with ware that is
pressed or jiggered. Just found it wasn't for me.
KATHI LESUEUR
http://www.lesueurclaywork.com
Randall Moody on mon 7 dec 09
I, of course, didn't say that all thrown things are divine nor did I =3D
imply
that in any way. I would argue that the piece in question is hand =3D
decorated
rather than handmade. I know that this is a subtle difference and I do =3D
not
mean to offend anyone who produces wares in the manners in question. I =3D
am
simply stating my own opinion on this. Using the plate Lee provided and
image of, it could be reasonably argued that as long as an actual person
applies the glaze (or even paint) to the greenware or bisque piece from =3D
Aunt
Bea's Big Eyed Children Mold Emporium it would be "handmade". There is =3D
that
slope again!=3D20
--Randall in Atlanta--
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Lee Love
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:56 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: jiggered plates
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Randall Moody
wrote:
> For me jollying/jiggering is not handmade but that is my prejudice and =
=3D
I
> accept that others don't share it.
It all depends. You could argue that not all thrown things are
"handmade." check out this press mold plate:
http://www.puckergallery.com/GL1_enl.jpg
Though this was formed in a mold, the decoration
definitely makes it "hand made."
Most hand thrown plates leave a lot to desire. Just because
something is thrown, does not make it automatically divine.
Always, the proof is in the pudding.
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Lee on mon 7 dec 09
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Randall Moody wro=
te:
> image of, it could be reasonably argued that as long as an actual person
> applies the glaze (or even paint) to the greenware or bisque piece from A=
unt
> Bea's Big Eyed Children Mold Emporium it would be "handmade".
You could, but then we'd all have questions about your judgement.
;^) I watched plates like these made and KNOW they are handmade and
fetch more than the same sized thrown plate (they take longer to
make.)
There is no way to confuse that kokusara with Aunt Bea's handiwork.
But then, I haven't seen Aunt Bea's work, so I might not be giving her
adequate credit. :^)
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift." -- Albert Einstein
marci and rex on mon 7 dec 09
At 02:54 PM 12/7/2009, Randall Moody wrote:
> Using the plate Lee provided and
>image of, it could be reasonably argued that as long as an actual person
>applies the glaze (or even paint) to the greenware or bisque piece from Au=
nt
>Bea's Big Eyed Children Mold Emporium it would be "handmade". There is tha=
t
>slope again!
YEP ! ... As china painters, werun up against that a lot..
Plates can be stamped " hand painted" even though the majority of
the design is decaled as long as someone hand applies a
little gold to the rim or a few swipes of paint to the plate
at some point... Lots of stuff out there marked " hand
painted" that really isnt..
Marci
James Freeman on mon 7 dec 09
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the product ceases to
be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies (jolly, jigger,
slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio artist needs to
consider very carefully.
Vince, et alii...
If I hold a patterned rib against the spinning clay on my wheel in order to
give it a profile, I don't think anyone here would argue that my piece was
no longer handmade, or even that it was no longer hand thrown. If I now
screw that patterned rib to a metal arm and move that arm into position wit=
h
my hand, what has really changed? Is the pot still handmade? Next I
install a set of stops so that my hand guides the mounted patterned rib to
precisely the same point every time. Is my pot still handmade? Next I
install a servo which pulls the arm down for me whenever I press a button.
Still handmade? Lastly, I wire my computer to the servo and write a few
lines of code which triggers the servo that pulls the arm. Still handmade?
Has anything really changed?
David Pye, the late professor of design at the Royal College of Art in
London, wrote an amazing book entitled "The Nature and Art of Workmanship",
which addresses precisely this issue. I highly recommend this book for
anyone who cares a whit about craft. In this book he states:
"Workmanship of the better sort is called, in an honorific way,
craftsmanship. Nobody, however, is prepared to say where craftsmanship end=
s
and ordinary manufacture begins. It is impossible to find a generally
satisfactory definition for it in the face of all the strange shibboleths
and prejudices about it which are acrimoniously maintained. It is a word t=
o
start an argument with."
Pye divides processes into two categories, the workmanship of risk, and the
workmanship of certainty. He gives as an example the difference between
writing, typing, and printing:
"The most typical and familiar example of the workmanship of risk is writin=
g
with a pen, and of the workmanship of certainty, modern printing. The firs=
t
thing to observe about printing, or any other representative example of the
workmanship of certainty, is that it originally involves more of judgment,
dexterity, and care than writing does, not less: for the type had to be
carved out of metal by hand in the first instance before any could be cast;
and the compositor of all people has to work carefully, and so on. But all
this judgment, dexterity, and care has been concentrated and stored up
before the actual printing starts. Once it does start, the stored up
capital is drawn on and the newspapers come pouring out in an absolutely
predetermined form with no possibility of variation between them, by virtue
of the exacting work put in beforehand in making and preparing the plant
that which does the work: and making not only the plant but the tools,
patterns, prototypes and jigs which enabled the plant to be built, and all
of which had to be made by the workmanship of risk."
"Typewriting represents an intermediate form of workmanship, that of limite=
d
risk. You can spoil the page in innumerable ways, but the N's will never
look like U's, and, however ugly the typing, it will almost necessarily be
legible. All workmen using the workmanship of risk are constantly devising
ways to limit the risk by using such things as jigs and templates. If you
want to draw a straight line with your pen, you do not go at it freehand,
but use a ruler, that is to say, a jig. There is still the risk of blots
and kinks, but less risk."
So where does one draw the line? At which point in my patterned rib example
does craftsmanship and handwork cease and manufacturing begin? Pye states,
"...it is not difficult to decide which category any given piece of work
falls into. An operative, applying the workmanship of certainty, cannot
spoil the job. A workman using the workmanship of risk assisted by no
matter what machine-tools and jigs, can do so at almost any minute. That i=
s
the essential difference. The risk is real."
If we accept Pye's reasoning, which I personally find reasonable, logical,
rational, and satisfying, then wheel throwing, even when using a patterned
rib, is workmanship of risk, and is therefore "handmade". Even if I screw
the rib to a free arm, we are still within the limits of the workmanship of
risk, as I can still very easily mess things up. If I hand press a slab of
clay into or over a mold, we still have to at least some small degree the
workmanship of risk, as I can press too hard, not hard enough, or too
unevenly, though the risk is admittedly quite limited, and far less that is
involved in throwing, for example. In both cases, the workmanship of risk
is involved, so in both cases the pieces are handmade. However, once we
install stops to limit the range of motion of the arm and thus control the
shape of the top of the piece, and install a mold to limit the shape and
position of the bottom of the piece, then we have very clearly crossed the
line. As in Pye's printing example, though craftsmanship and the
workmanship of risk went into building our jigger or jolly machine, and int=
o
making our mold and patterned rib, absolutely no craftsmanship or
workmanship of risk is involved in spinning out a plate or bowl on the
machine. The product of a jigger or jolly machine is of an absolutely
predetermined size and shape, with no possibility of variation, and is
strictly the product of the workmanship of certainty. The product is
therefore not handmade at all, but rather machine made, even if we made the
machine and it's jigs or pulled the lever ourselves.
The same reasoning, unfortunately, dooms slip casting to the same
categorization. While your prototype and molds are clearly handmade,
involving the workmanship of risk, the pots you pull from the mold are not.
While they are certainly hand cast, they are the product of a manufacturing
process, the workmanship of certainty, and are therefore not handmade.
Now what of the person who starts with a slip cast or jiggered or jollied
piece, then decorates, paints, or glazes it by hand? Despite the
workmanship of risk employed in decorating the piece, it's manufacture stil=
l
employed the workmanship of certainty, so while we can honestly say the
piece is hand painted, hand glazed, or hand decorated, we still cannot say
that it was handmade. Decals? Even if we designed the prototype ourselves=
,
the making of the decal image, and hence the decorating of the pot, involve=
s
no workmanship of risk at all, and hence the pot is not even hand decorated
(unless you really want to split hairs and claim that placing the decal on
the pot involved, even if in an utterly insignificant amount, some risk).
What of the person who uses slip cast, jiggered, or even extruded forms as =
a
raw material; cutting, joining, and altering them to create a new object?
In this case, though the raw material was not handmade, all of the processe=
s
applied to those manufactured raw materials in order to create the new form
involve the workmanship of risk, so the piece is handmade. This is no
different than a studio furniture maker who starts with commercially milled
boards. The boards are not handmade, but the desk, chair, or bench
fashioned out of them certainly is.
Do read Mr. Pye's book. He spends 140 pages fleshing out this line of
reasoning in far greater depth than is possible in my already overly long
email. You shall not regret the time nor shekels invested.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Frank Gaydos on tue 8 dec 09
My $0.02??? At this point in my career - I don't give a poop! I do it all -
jigger, jolly, slab, mold, throw. I get it done! Do my customers care? No!
Why? Because real crux of the issue is whether the work and the art is
really my personal work or not. My pieces are mine - designed by me, create=
d
by me, and they are happy to get a good story, a nice piece of work and a
chance to take home a bit of the artist to share with others when there are
guests.
Like I said ----
My $0.02!
John Rodgers
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
JOHN,
I agree. I use a shaped plaster hump mole to form my platters. I use a slab
roller to flatten the clay. I work the bottoms pounding the clay, throwing
finger marks as I compress it on the wheel and lastly add feet that were
made in a press mole. It might actually be faster to just throw the darn
thing but I'm after sameness. The only interest I have is to decorate the
front of the platter. The jigger/jolly gives you sameness .
http://home.comcast.net/~frankgaydos/Slides.html
I just applied to three NCECA shows in the area and have no hesitation
stateting they are hand made. Good grief, I made the clay, the glaze, and
throw them on a wheel head. It is JUST a tool. It helps you produce more
efficiently, like the slab roller, the extruder, the spray gun and the
computer kiln, oh my. After all, you need to create the original form. It's
kind of like cutting a CD, you made the music but reproduce it on CD after
CD but you are still the artist that made the original.
Hamada used a form to make the square bottles (if he made them at all) and
he applied brush work onto them....
This thread comes up a lot, I think it is the 3rd or 4th time since I've
been a member.
Yes, the planning is fully underway for NCECA. City Hall is sponsoring a
show in showcases outside the Mayors Office. City Hall is one piece of work
and you should not miss it while in town.
The building is topped by an 11.3-m (37 ft), 27-ton bronze statue of city
founder William Penn, one of 250 marble sculptures !! created by Alexander
Milne Calder that adorn the building inside and out. The statue is the
tallest atop any building in the world.
A joke among Philadelphians that results from Penn's position is that when
viewed from Ben Franklin Parkway the statue appears to be engaged in a lewd
activity, due to the scroll in its hand held at waist level. :>) and here I
thought he was just peeing on the city below...:>)
http://philadelphiacityhallwillpennshomepage.org/Mainframeset.html
Frank Gaydos
irene lawson on tue 8 dec 09
Thank you for the Swope reference!!!
Tastes like s&*t! My kids could never understand why I always said that =
=3D
as I ate my cereal in the morning, and laughed hysterically...=3D20
May be the first time I have had someone refer to Putney Swope besides =3D
me! My favorite is, "How many syllables, Mario?" when someone can't =3D
remember something they are trying to tell me. Thank god for Netflix, I =
=3D
sat all my kids down to watch it with me to enrich their teenage minds.
You made my morning start on a high as I sat drinking my coffee. =3D20
Thanks to the handle discussion I have new pleasure every morning =3D
critiquing handles on my collection of cups...good ones mixed with bad =3D
ones, I know why I reach for the same ones morning after morning...they =3D
are the ones with comfortable handles and the right size for the amount =3D
of coffe I like to drink. My favorite was made by my first official =3D
pottery instructor, it has a whimsical little face with a sharp nose for =
=3D
a thumb rest, I like to rub my thumb on it as I ponder my plan for the =3D
day. OH! That's why my thumb hurts all the time!
Irene Lawson
Snail Scott on tue 8 dec 09
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> Pye divides processes into two categories, the workmanship of risk,
> and the
> workmanship of certainty... He gives as an example the difference
> between
> writing, typing, and printing...
> The same reasoning, unfortunately, dooms slip casting to the same
> categorization. While your prototype and molds are clearly handmade,
> involving the workmanship of risk, the pots you pull from the mold are
> not.
> While they are certainly hand cast, they are the product of a
> manufacturing
> process, the workmanship of certainty, and are therefore not handmade.
Pye's is certainly one of the best-reasoned and sensible
systems of definition for hand craftsmanship. I treasure his
books, which were quite pricey and hard to find for a time,
but recently republished and more readily available now.
(His other book is 'The Nature and Aesthetics of Design'.)
I would observe that Pye's system (as you noted, James)
discussed the removal of the 'workmanship of risk' to
other parts of the process, as the type designer works by
hand to make a part of what the printing press operator
produces with certainty.
While casting itself is a process with a high degree of
certainty, the design and facture of the pattern (and to a
lesser extent the fabrication of the mold) are processes of
risk. So, the slip-casting process _as a whole_ incorporates
a great deal of Pye's 'workmanship of risk', although not in
the final phases of the actual casting.
You said:
> ...what of the person who starts with a slip cast or jiggered or
> jollied
> piece, then decorates, paints, or glazes it by hand? Despite the
> workmanship of risk employed in decorating the piece, it's manufacture
> still
> employed the workmanship of certainty, so while we can honestly say the
> piece is hand painted, hand glazed, or hand decorated, we still cannot
> say
> that it was handmade...
You also used the contrary case of a furniture maker using
purchased milled lumber to make a handcrafted chair.
So, I'm assuming it's not the phase in the process that's
the primary factor in your analysis, but the degree of
importance that the 'risk' process has within the whole?
i would not consider a painter to have not been the maker
of their painting just because they bought a pre-stretched
canvas and manufactured paint. So, why is painting on a
slip-cast or jiggered blank less of a handmade work? (Or
is painting simply not a handcraft?)
I will posit that while an elaborately conceived and
painted surface on a purchased whiteware blank is
more a work of craft than one with a single commercial
decal, such a blank with a combination of commercial
decals applied in a novel, thought-provoking configuration
is as much a work of craft as a china-painted rose copied
stroke for stroke (by hand) from a published pattern.
In short, what is the proportion of risk to certainty that
is contained within the work?
and to lead the discussion further...
It's certainly fair to say that craft is in the doing, not the
thinking (which may be the purview of art), but is there
not also a sort of 'craftsmanship of thought'? A mental
'workmanship of risk' which steps beyond the pattern
defined by convention or tradition (mental 'certainty') to
take a chance on an unguided free direction like a
tool without a jig? We've all known sloppy, unskilled
thinkers...is thought not also a skill, a craft developed
through practice and training, put to use blindly by rote
or else with purpose, originality, and indeed risk?
-Snail
Steve Slatin on tue 8 dec 09
James --
well, you quote Pye, but Pye says "It is impossible to find a generally
satisfactory definition for ". Well, Pye clearly never read=
ClayArt.
Here, within the beneficent warming glow of the thoughts of our most freque=
nt posters, you will find several people willing to provide generally satis=
factory definitions for craftsmanship -- each different. The same goes for=
"handmade." And "art." And "craft." And don't dare mention the words "ra=
ku" or "teabowl."
Fundamentally, when posting to ClayArt it's best not to use any words at al=
l.
Hmmmmm ????
Steve Slatin --
--- On Mon, 12/7/09, James Freeman wrote:
> From: James Freeman
> Subject: Re: jiggered plates
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:46 PM
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Vince
> Pitelka
> wrote:
>
> It is always a slippery slope deciding at what point the
> product ceases to
> be "handmade" when you are using assisted technologies
> (jolly, jigger,
> slip-cast, ram-press), and this is something each studio
> artist needs to
> consider very carefully.
>
>
>
James Freeman on tue 8 dec 09
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Snail Scott wrot=
e:
>
> While [slip] casting itself is a process with a high degree of
> certainty, the design and facture of the pattern (and to a
> lesser extent the fabrication of the mold) are processes of
> risk. So, the slip-casting process _as a whole_ incorporates
> a great deal of Pye's 'workmanship of risk', although not in
> the final phases of the actual casting.
>
Yes, but not in a meaningful way. The prototype and the mold are certainly
handmade under Pye's rubric, involving as they did the workmanship of risk.
No question about this. But they are all, in Pye's words, "...the stored u=
p
capital". Pye acknowledges that the building of the "plant", in this case
the making of the prototype and mold, can and usually does involve the
workmanship of risk, but the product of that plant absolutely does not, and
it does not get to piggyback on the workmanship of risk that went into
making the "plant". The slip cast pot that comes out of the mold involves
only the workmanship of certainty, so is not handmade. The size and shape
of the cast pot are absolutely and completely governed by the walls of the
mold, and no meaningful variation is possible.
> You said:
>
>> ...what of the person who starts with a slip cast or jiggered or
>>
>> jollied
>> piece, then decorates, paints, or glazes it by hand? Despite the
>> workmanship of risk employed in decorating the piece, it's manufacture
>> still
>> employed the workmanship of certainty, so while we can honestly say the
>> piece is hand painted, hand glazed, or hand decorated, we still cannot
>> say
>> that it was handmade...
>>
>
> You also used the contrary case of a furniture maker using
> purchased milled lumber to make a handcrafted chair.
>
Yes. The lumber example is a contrary case. The board does not remain in
it's original form with only an applied finish when made into furniture, bu=
t
rather is cut, shaped, and joined to other former boards in order to be
turned into the final product. It is no longer a board at all; it is now a
leg, or a drawer front, or a rail. The board is truly only a raw material,
and it's existence as a "board" ceases completely. The slip cast bowl you
decorated, however, is still a slip cast bowl.
So, I'm assuming it's not the phase in the process that's
> the primary factor in your analysis, but the degree of
> importance that the 'risk' process has within the whole?
>
If I understand you correctly, it is precisely the phase in the process
that is the determining factor, or more correctly, it is "which process doe=
s
the task actually belong to" which is the determining factor. As Pye
stated, if the workmanship of risk was applied solely in the creation of th=
e
setup necessary to produce the finished product, making the type and settin=
g
up the page in his example, making the prototype and making the mold in
yours, then that workmanship of risk applies only to those items, and does
not transfer to the product made using those items. In Pye's example, the
newspaper that comes off the press cannot be said to be handmade even thoug=
h
the plate, and even the press itself, may have been.
>
>
> i would not consider a painter to have not been the maker
> of their painting just because they bought a pre-stretched
> canvas and manufactured paint. So, why is painting on a
> slip-cast or jiggered blank less of a handmade work? (Or
> is painting simply not a handcraft?)
>
One does not typically speak of a "maker" of a painting, but rather of the
"painter" of a painting. A painting is not comparable to a manufactured
(made) object. In painting, the product is the surface only, the
"decoration" if you will, and the substrate upon which the painting is
executed is largely irrelevant. If I paint upon a canvas, purchased or
otherwise, I can honestly say that I painted the picture. If I paint upon =
a
chest of drawers that I purchased, while I can still honestly say that I
painted this, I cannot say that I made this. Likewise, if I china paint a
lovely picture on a piece of commercial greenware, while I can honestly say
that I painted this, I cannot say that I made this.
> I will posit that while an elaborately conceived and
> painted surface on a purchased whiteware blank is
> more a work of craft than one with a single commercial
> decal, such a blank with a combination of commercial
> decals applied in a novel, thought-provoking configuration
> is as much a work of craft as a china-painted rose copied
> stroke for stroke (by hand) from a published pattern.
>
I completely agree. And while this hypothetical piece is definitely hand
decorated, it is not handmade. If you just stuck a single, huge commercial
decal in the middle, it would not even be hand decorated, as no meaningful
workmanship of risk was involved.
>
> In short, what is the proportion of risk to certainty that
> is contained within the work?
>
Pye addressed this topic in his reference to using a ruler to draw a
straight line. He has no truck with a craftsman limiting risk through the
use of jigs and such, but once risk is eliminated, the product ceases to be
handwork.
> and to lead the discussion further...
>
> It's certainly fair to say that craft is in the doing, not the
> thinking (which may be the purview of art), but is there
> not also a sort of 'craftsmanship of thought'? A mental
> 'workmanship of risk' which steps beyond the pattern
> defined by convention or tradition (mental 'certainty') to
> take a chance on an unguided free direction like a
> tool without a jig? We've all known sloppy, unskilled
> thinkers...is thought not also a skill, a craft developed
> through practice and training, put to use blindly by rote
> or else with purpose, originality, and indeed risk?
>
A fascinating topic for conversation, but likely one that will get us yelle=
d
at by the powerful "Floating Blue" faction, which is probably champing at
the bit even now. Nonetheless, I will say that I think by "craftsmanship o=
f
thought" you have just defined "creativity".
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Lee Love on tue 8 dec 09
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM, James Freeman
wrote:
> Pye divides processes into two categories, the workmanship of risk, and t=
=3D
he
> workmanship of certainty. =3DA0He gives as an example the difference betw=
ee=3D
n
> writing, typing, and printing:
A high level of skill can eliminate risk. So can computerized
electric kilns. A really big trap once we reach some level of
success is copying yourself.
Part of my last lecture for Anatomy Of Japanese Pottery was on this
topic, using Kokutani, Kutani and Yoshidaya Kutani to illustrate
periods of discovery, mastery and rode reproduction using these pots
as examples.
So maybe, the techniques we use are not so important as our
ability to introduce risk and discovery into our work.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Des & Jan Howard on tue 8 dec 09
John Rodgers wrote:
> If you apply the definition of "hand made" as being the hand that
> directly forms the clay - the heel, the palm, the thumb, the fingers
> directly touching, pushing, shoving , pulling, squeezing the clay - then
> anything else is not handmade. If you allow that the hands are involved
> in all the actions necessary to bring the clay to form and finish - then
> that too, could be considered "hand made" It is between the two means
> that the issue lies - what is hand made and what is not.
I cringe every time I see or hear the prefix "hand-.
As in hand-made, hand-crafted, hand-decorated,
hand-thrown, etc. It is often used to justify crude,
clumsy &/or mediocre work. It has become a scam word.
> My $0.02??? At this point in my career - I don't give a poop! I do it
> all - jigger, jolly, slab, mold, throw. I get it done! Do my customers
> care? No! Why? Because real crux of the issue is whether the work and
> the art is really my personal work or not. My pieces are mine - designed
> by me, created by me, and they are happy to get a good story, a nice
> piece of work and a chance to take home a bit of the artist to share
> with others when there are guests.
After going through our workshop customers seem to use
the expression home-made when referring to our work.
We can live with that.
Des
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
-32.656072 149.840624
| |
|
