Lili Krakowski on fri 10 jun 11
I seem to be agreeing with everyone....but I also think, strongly, that =3D
one must understand that glaze recipes never stand alone, are unique, =3D
and so on. That the clutching-to-the-bosom-school-of-glaze-recipes is =3D
foolish selfishness incarnate.
Yes, one should know what ingredients do. And many a book from the =3D
library provides that info as well as Hamer and Hamer at over $40 a used =
=3D
copy.
For me, reading "all" the books has been far more helpful than the =3D
dictionaries, which I find best when not remembering which, for =3D
instance, has more lithium--spodumene or lepidolite.... Reading "all" =3D
the books has taught me what others learned from THEIR =3D
experience....cure crazing in high calcium glazes by replacing whiting =3D
by wollastonite, for instance...Stuff like that.
A lot of folk shy away from glaze calculation because they fear the =3D
math. But that is really no longer a problem as calculators and glaze =3D
calculation programs reassure the timorous. Glaze calculation is plain =3D
fun...I loved it when it was pencil and paper stuff, love it now with =3D
Glaze Master (TM). =3D20
"We" all got along on trial and error for millennia. Many of today's =3D
glaze anxieties come from an over-abundance of materials. When the one =3D
and only glaze you could concoct came from some dirt found in Grandma's =3D
backyard, and ashes from the stove it all was fairly easy. Today with =3D
very, often over-refined, materials we can make highly complex glazes, =3D
which the "improved" technologies for firing have made even more complex =
=3D
and "scientific".
Knowing what material does what is easy enough to find out. Testing--if =
=3D
one wishes to--is exciting. But--and yes, I agree with myself--knowing =3D
,as May endorses--what family a glaze belongs to, and what the =3D
characteristics of that family are, seems to be the easiest, most =3D
accessible, practicable method for most.
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
| |
|
