Gavin Stairs on wed 14 jan 98
Well, as Ron Roy predicted, I got very little response to my modest
proposal for an Institute for Ceramic Technology for Studio Ceramists (the
title varies with every repetition). I guess I'm not surprised.
It would seem that such a venture would not be self supporting on the basis
of service revenues. That probably goes a long way to explaining why it
doesn't already exist.
The technologists who are already active in this field are all connected
with commercial enterprises, and spend most of their time and effort on
their paying customers. No surprise. When I survey what needs to be done,
I can quite convince myself that I have found the solution to my spare time
problem for the rest of my life.
I know that there are many competent and hardworking authors, editors and
teachers who are striving to bring good practice and tight glazes to
everyone. However, I still see that there is a crying need both to upgrade
the technical skills of the studio potter, and to provide testing services
for glaze safety and durability. I suspect that the proper venue for this
effort is some general membership society for studio potters. One with a
mandate and roster of services to members such that few serious potters
would not join. The closest to this currently in existence would seem to
be NCECA, but they are specifically targeted to education. They, I think,
would see it to be the province of one of their institutional members to
carry such a load. Perhaps they are right, but ceramics departments
everywhere have the same problem as studio potters: tight budgets and many
alternate plans for available funds.
Here is the program I see as worthwhile and necessary in this technological
age:
1. A continuing effort to study and characterize (for general properties,
durability, fitting to bodies, safety, etc.) glazes and bodies in wide, or
even occasional, use by studio potters. For this, a generous assortment of
analytic techniques should be available. This entails a serious capital
cost, or at least generous access to existing facilities.
2. A service to potters, at nominal cost (e.g., cost of materials,
shipping and modest overheads) for glaze leaching and other safety tests.
3. A kiln study program to understand the dynamics of, and materials for,
studio style batch kilns, including firing profiles and atmosphere control.
4. A general study of safety issues for potters: chemical safety,
inhalation risks, skin problems, mitigation procedures.
5. A general assistance package and consultation service for the business
aspects of small studios.
I add this last one because it is apparent to me that at least part of the
problem is economic: many potters can't, or don't think they can, pay for
commercial testing services and their own researches. Notwithstanding
this, I observe that a good number of potters do very nicely indeed. I see
that the difference lies partly in volition, and partly in the presence or
lack of general business skills.
Of course, not all of these programs need be addressed at any one
institution. I wonder if they might be shared cooperatively among several
institutions.
My own University does not offer any ceramics program. Nor does it have a
fine arts practicum or crafts program. Nevertheless, there are many
analytic tools scattered about the place. I know how difficult it can be
to arrange for their use by such "fringe" groups as studio potters. The
existence of a generally acknowledged program of study, of which the
requested use would form a part, would greatly facilitate requests,
especially if authorial participation in resulting academic papers would
ensue, or if there were a possibility to participate in (additional) grant
funding. There is an implied quid pro quo, even in academe.
Where is the sunshine at the end of this tunnel?
Gavin Stairs
Toronto, Canada
Pat & Charlie Clogston on thu 15 jan 98
Seems like you're the light!! I'm just a small hobby potter, but have many
concerns about the health and safety aspects of pottery. To me, your ideas
are a real hope that someday we will have solid information to use in making
our own judgements.
It seems that your pursuit that could be funded by a foundation or
government agency. Would it be possible to get a grant from a public or
private foundation - Orton?, Ford?, dare I say NEA?, even NCECA? Our major
suppliers might be interested in supporting something that would so clearly
benefit everyone involved in ceramic processes.
IMHO, the first four items in your list are right on - the fifth seems to me
to be a distraction. There are others who deal with the marketing and
financial interests - your organization should focus on the gathering and
publicizing of technical information.
While I'm spieling on - seems that the Web offers a cheap and easy way to
communicate the results of your research.
Your ideas should be able to be packaged into a nice, actionable plan. Keep
at it - think up ways we can help! You're on the right track!!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Gavin Stairs
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 9:00 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list CLAYART
> Subject: Ceramic Technology for Studio Ceramists (was: vanadium)
>
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Well, as Ron Roy predicted, I got very little response to my modest
> proposal for an Institute for Ceramic Technology for Studio Ceramists (the
> title varies with every repetition). I guess I'm not surprised.
>
> It would seem that such a venture would not be self supporting on the
basis
> of service revenues. That probably goes a long way to explaining why it
> doesn't already exist.
>
> The technologists who are already active in this field are all connected
> with commercial enterprises, and spend most of their time and effort on
> their paying customers. No surprise. When I survey what needs to be
done,
> I can quite convince myself that I have found the solution to my spare
time
> problem for the rest of my life.
>
> I know that there are many competent and hardworking authors, editors and
> teachers who are striving to bring good practice and tight glazes to
> everyone. However, I still see that there is a crying need both to
upgrade
> the technical skills of the studio potter, and to provide testing services
> for glaze safety and durability. I suspect that the proper venue for this
> effort is some general membership society for studio potters. One with a
> mandate and roster of services to members such that few serious potters
> would not join. The closest to this currently in existence would seem to
> be NCECA, but they are specifically targeted to education. They, I think,
> would see it to be the province of one of their institutional members to
> carry such a load. Perhaps they are right, but ceramics departments
> everywhere have the same problem as studio potters: tight budgets and many
> alternate plans for available funds.
>
> Here is the program I see as worthwhile and necessary in this
technological
> age:
> 1. A continuing effort to study and characterize (for general properties,
> durability, fitting to bodies, safety, etc.) glazes and bodies in wide, or
> even occasional, use by studio potters. For this, a generous assortment
of
> analytic techniques should be available. This entails a serious capital
> cost, or at least generous access to existing facilities.
> 2. A service to potters, at nominal cost (e.g., cost of materials,
> shipping and modest overheads) for glaze leaching and other safety tests.
> 3. A kiln study program to understand the dynamics of, and materials for,
> studio style batch kilns, including firing profiles and atmosphere
control.
> 4. A general study of safety issues for potters: chemical safety,
> inhalation risks, skin problems, mitigation procedures.
> 5. A general assistance package and consultation service for the business
> aspects of small studios.
>
> I add this last one because it is apparent to me that at least part of the
> problem is economic: many potters can't, or don't think they can, pay for
> commercial testing services and their own researches. Notwithstanding
> this, I observe that a good number of potters do very nicely indeed. I
see
> that the difference lies partly in volition, and partly in the presence or
> lack of general business skills.
>
> Of course, not all of these programs need be addressed at any one
> institution. I wonder if they might be shared cooperatively among several
> institutions.
>
> My own University does not offer any ceramics program. Nor does it have a
> fine arts practicum or crafts program. Nevertheless, there are many
> analytic tools scattered about the place. I know how difficult it can be
> to arrange for their use by such "fringe" groups as studio potters. The
> existence of a generally acknowledged program of study, of which the
> requested use would form a part, would greatly facilitate requests,
> especially if authorial participation in resulting academic papers would
> ensue, or if there were a possibility to participate in (additional) grant
> funding. There is an implied quid pro quo, even in academe.
>
> Where is the sunshine at the end of this tunnel?
>
>
> Gavin Stairs
> Toronto, Canada
>
Gavin Stairs on fri 16 jan 98
Hi Clayart,
I attempted to post this a while ago, but didn't see it go by. If this is
a duplicate, please forgive.
I have had twelve responses to my posts about a Technical Institute for
Studio Potters. I thought I'd make up a list and put tham all on it to
keep interested parties up to date on developments, if any. If you would
like to be included, just let me know and I'll add your name. It's not
likely to wear you out with reading, though.
Twelve responses is not enough to make a quorum, but enough to show that
I'm not alone. I intend to pursue this thing as time permits. It is
probably true that NCECA is the proper forum, and I will make an effort to
attend this year. In fact I'm more likely to be able to make it next year,
and the timing is probably better then for me. Besides, someone else may
do it for me before then!
Gavin
Gavin Stairs
Toronto, Canada
Liz Willoughby on mon 19 jan 98
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Gavin, I believe that this is a very important step in providing help and
knowlege for potters. It might bring them into the 20 th century regarding
good durable and safe glazes for potters, and for the people that are using
their work. Not enough knowlegde is out there now. I applaud your
efforts.
Best regards, Liz
>I have had twelve responses to my posts about a Technical Institute for
>Studio Potters. I thought I'd make up a list and put tham all on it to
>keep interested parties up to date on developments, if any. If you would
>like to be included, just let me know and I'll add your name. It's not
>likely to wear you out with reading, though.
>
>Twelve responses is not enough to make a quorum, but enough to show that
>I'm not alone. I intend to pursue this thing as time permits. It is
>probably true that NCECA is the proper forum, and I will make an effort to
>attend this year. In fact I'm more likely to be able to make it next year,
>and the timing is probably better then for me. Besides, someone else may
>do it for me before then!
>
>Gavin
>
>Gavin Stairs
>Toronto, Canada
Liz Willoughby
R.R. 1
Grafton, Ontario, Canada
K0K 2G0
e-mail lizwill@phc.igs.net
| |
|
