Craig Martell on sun 18 jan 98
At 09:47 AM 1/17/98 EST, John Rodgers wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>For the simple lowly
>pot we really can do without all those chemicals that make up glazes. Glazes
>are not necessary. A plain clay piece, decorated by carving, and fired to
>vitrification is sufficient to meet the need of functionality and art. But a
>condition of mankind is to never be satisfied, so we are constantly looking
>for something to improve the esthetics of clay art, thus we arrive at a
>point where we are using toxic materials to get a "Look". We could all live
>more safely and be more environmentally friendly without it.
Hello John:
Don't write off glazes in general because there are some materials that are
potentially hazardous. There are myriads of glazes that can be made with
raw materials that don't pose a threat to potter or customer. Sure, you
have to handle everything carefully because of silica dust etc. but glaze
technology is not a world of total poisonous anarchy as you suggest.
Personally, I would prefer to handle, use, and wash pots that are glazed.
Even vitreous clays can trap and hold a lot of bacteria, mold, and all kinds
of crap you don't want in your food.
There isn't anything odd about potters trying to improve their work with new
glazes and it isn't always a big toxic gamble. The big challenge is to
learn about glazes and materials so that you make intelligent choices about
what you are using, why you are using it, and how to use it safely. When
you ignore this and just chuck glazes out the window as "all bad", you miss
out on a large part of the craft. You don't have to worry about glaze fit
though!
To say that glazes are "not necessary" is total nonsense. I don't mean to be
an edgy jerk in saying that, but that's what it is. Especially when
considering glazes for use on table ware and other food use pieces. Glazes
on domestic pots are necessary and make the pots more useful, safer, and
easier to care for, if the potter and glazemaker know their craft, and this
is surely possible in all of us.
regards, Craig Martell-Oregon
Tim Stowell on tue 20 jan 98
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:19:09 EST Craig Martell
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>At 09:47 AM 1/17/98 EST, John Rodgers wrote:
>>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>
>>For the simple lowly
>>pot we really can do without all those chemicals that make up glazes.
>Glazes
>>are not necessary. A plain clay piece, decorated by carving, and
>fired to
>>vitrification is sufficient to meet the need of functionality and
>art. But a
>>condition of mankind is to never be satisfied, so we are constantly
>looking
>>for something to improve the esthetics of clay art, thus we arrive at
>a
>>point where we are using toxic materials to get a "Look". We could
>all live
>>more safely and be more environmentally friendly without it.
>
Perhaps the answer is to look at clay pots and eat off paper -
| |
|
