pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 25 aug 12
Somewhere in the endless Boxes of goodies, I have an old 'Cubist' Mug from
some Commercial Pottery in the '20s or thereabouts I guess.
It is stunning in it's way...surprising it would even exist at all...and,
the only example I have ever seen of 'Cubism' in Pottery.
If I knew where it was I'd put an image on to some free site and
post-a-link.
I doubt hardly anyone else would like it, but, who knows?
One of these days I will run across it and put up an image.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
>> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
>> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics...
>
>
> Sometimes soulless - to be sure, but also fresh and
> clean and sharply conceived, with little room for
> bullshit about emo spontaneity and "Every flaw is a
> precious treasure".
>
> Any trend contains, so to speak, the seeds of its own
> revolution. Crusty, wabi-sabi, gestural, raw, etc - these
> had a real heyday, and it lasted a while. I do think that
> the greater the dominance of a particular style, the more
> thoroughly it gets pushed aside later on. The ubiquity
> of the rough, unfussy woodfired aesthetic for so long
> almost guarantees that it will be just as thoroughly
> supplanted for a while.
>
> It's hardly gone. No style ever really vanishes, I think,
> but especially when we've seen a lot of anything, it
> gets replaced in the 'what's interesting' part of our brain
> by new or different things. For a while, TV is wall-to-
> wall cop shows and hospital dramas, then they vanish
> and sit-coms rule the airwaves, then soap opera epics,
> then dramas come back again. They never go away
> completely, and individual people continue to make
> their own choices, but the zeitgeist needs a break. ;-)
>
> It's not a sudden shift; it just seems that way. Danish-
> modern minimalist pots have been around for fifty
> years or more, all through the Japanese-inspired
> gloppy-pot years. 'Pretty' had a greater fall from favor,
> but just as it's coming back strong in other artforms,
> defiantly decorative and sometimes sub-rosa
> subversive, we see it in ceramics as well.
>
> We crave the new, but also covet the familiar, and it
> will all go around again. In the meantime, I'm enjoying
> the view from the merry-go-round.
>
> -Snail
Sumi von Dassow on sat 25 aug 12
I was kind of thinking the same thing. It may have to do with economic
uncertainty. If it isn't perfect it might not sell and these are hard
times for many. Hemlines of course are famous for moving with the
economy, too.
Sumi
> I think perhaps changes in aesthetics move with the length of our hemline=
s.
> Maybe crusty wood-fired pots belong to an era of no holds barred streaker=
s?
>
> Sharon Wetherby
> Fort Worth, TX, USA
>
>
mel jacobson on sat 25 aug 12
having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
not a lot of soul. but, as we see, it is very well
crafted, and careful, and perfect. in fact it is almost
industrial nordic design.
i think we have moved to a new aesthetic. (duh.)
electric fired, perfect glaze, perfect clay, perfect design.
it is a good thing to discuss.
i have no good or bad, right or wrong.
i see dramatic change. (over the last four years.)
and, it is not cm that makes the change, it is the work
that is presented. i see it everywhere.
(it is remindful of the gallery owner that said...`no more crusty wood
fired pots please.`)
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart page below:
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
http://www.21stcenturykilns.com/
Snail Scott on sat 25 aug 12
On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics...
Sometimes soulless - to be sure, but also fresh and
clean and sharply conceived, with little room for
bullshit about emo spontaneity and "Every flaw is a
precious treasure".
Any trend contains, so to speak, the seeds of its own
revolution. Crusty, wabi-sabi, gestural, raw, etc - these
had a real heyday, and it lasted a while. I do think that
the greater the dominance of a particular style, the more
thoroughly it gets pushed aside later on. The ubiquity
of the rough, unfussy woodfired aesthetic for so long
almost guarantees that it will be just as thoroughly
supplanted for a while.
It's hardly gone. No style ever really vanishes, I think,
but especially when we've seen a lot of anything, it
gets replaced in the 'what's interesting' part of our brain
by new or different things. For a while, TV is wall-to-
wall cop shows and hospital dramas, then they vanish
and sit-coms rule the airwaves, then soap opera epics,
then dramas come back again. They never go away
completely, and individual people continue to make
their own choices, but the zeitgeist needs a break. ;-)
It's not a sudden shift; it just seems that way. Danish-
modern minimalist pots have been around for fifty
years or more, all through the Japanese-inspired
gloppy-pot years. 'Pretty' had a greater fall from favor,
but just as it's coming back strong in other artforms,
defiantly decorative and sometimes sub-rosa
subversive, we see it in ceramics as well.
We crave the new, but also covet the familiar, and it
will all go around again. In the meantime, I'm enjoying
the view from the merry-go-round.
-Snail
Sharon Wetherby on sat 25 aug 12
I think perhaps changes in aesthetics move with the length of our hemlines.
Maybe crusty wood-fired pots belong to an era of no holds barred streakers?
Sharon Wetherby
Fort Worth, TX, USA
revivalsteph@yahoo.com on sat 25 aug 12
For the sake of thread consistency I 'll repost this under mel's origi=
=3D
nal
topic heading...
the following are in no particular order , are only the thoughts of the=
=3D
morning .
Perfection is a part of a wave in a never ending oscillation of waves. I
remember a perfection wave in the 1980s, or rather a wave of perfect,
flawless, pristine work, perfectly and pristinely photographed. controlle=
=3D
d
glazes, perfect edges, flawless. To everything there is a season.
presentation and perfection go hand in hand, as in,
" Are you ready for your closeup dahling?!" the better a work can be
perfectly displayed in a 2d format, the more alluring it will be. perfect=
=3D
skin, perfect features, who cannot help but swoon over a camera friendly =
=3D
star?
with Facebook in particular now, I see stunning works from all over the
world. the bar is subtly raised. It can trend higher and higher until
there is a reaction in the opposite direction.
the very best design/work can be pristine yet speak to us.
Perfect work looks best in a perfect context.
good design married with good handling of materials and execution are
admittedly, to die for and deserving of admiration.
People differ. different personalities make different work, have differen=
=3D
t
goals ,parameters, and results.
An individual's work changes over time, some more than others. i do
sometimes wonder how much we consciously or subconsciously mimic what we=
=3D
see. Are we genetically predetermined to be fashion slaves?
Some of what we call 'perfection' is about control. I do not know quite=
=3D
how to express this , but control without 'life' to me is cold and boring=
=3D
.
Control that somehow keeps the kiss of life may get closer to perfection=
=3D
in
my sense. maybe it is about materials as well as the hand of the artist.
With clay it seems that, as we develop skill , we assert control, often w=
=3D
e
struggle for control, getting closer and closer to an edge where , once
skill is attained , we begin to decide how tightly we work that control,
utilizing materials, techniques, everything at hand. milling it, refining=
=3D
it. Some move ever closer to that edge, while others begin to back away..=
=3D
.In
a waltz or a dance , precision is a component, but so is that indescriba=
=3D
ble
component that tells us the dance is fluid and real, as much about passio=
=3D
n
as it is precision. For me , the best dance has both.
perfection is not something I chase. perfect is not a word I spend much t=
=3D
ime
with.
vibrant is a word I like. if work can vibrate in a real environment, in =
=3D
a
daily context to bring pleasure . that is good for me. it may never be th=
=3D
e
shining piece under the spotlight in the white gallery, but it will sound=
=3D
a
harmony or a basenote in a larger symphony .
however i do enjoy work made by people who are not like me , and who make=
=3D
work i would never make...viva la difference!
I 'm not sure I have defined anything here, just musing and hanging out =
=3D
way
to late in the AM at the keyboard!
Stephani Stephenson
Ben Morrison on sat 25 aug 12
I don't see this movement as a bad thing. I did have a guy critique my pott=
=3D
ery the other day and bash me for not cutting a foot ring in a vase. I told=
=3D
him I usually use a wiggle wire and don't trip most of my vases. I like it=
=3D
that way. Well he's a jerk, but none the less, there is a movement toward =
=3D
a factory look in our ware. I personally won't be pushing all my work in th=
=3D
at direction. I may cater to the customer as I always do, but I don't see a=
=3D
need to trim vases. At least not mine. I don't fall into that category tha=
=3D
t many Japanese tea bowl collectors do, in that the uglier the better. I al=
=3D
so don't try to buy off my mistakes with some idea of imperfection being or=
=3D
iginality. Good pots are good pots, and my errors and junk are just that.=
=3D
=3D0A=3D0A-Ben=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A________________________________=3D0A From: me=
l jacobson <=3D
melpots2@VISI.COM>=3D0ATo: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG =3D0ASent: Saturday, Au=
gust=3D
25, 2012 7:03 AM=3D0ASubject: new topic/perfection=3D0A =3D0Ahaving digest=
ed the=3D
latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....=3D0Aplease discuss the movement in c=
er=3D
amics to very=3D0Afussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.=3D0A=3D0Ano=
t a lo=3D
t of soul.=3DA0 but, as we see, it is very well=3D0Acrafted, and careful, a=
nd p=3D
erfect.=3DA0 in fact it is almost=3D0Aindustrial nordic design.=3D0A=3D0Ai =
think we=3D
have moved to a new aesthetic. (duh.)=3D0A=3D0Aelectric fired, perfect gla=
ze, =3D
perfect clay, perfect design.=3D0A=3D0Ait is a good thing to discuss.=3D0A=
=3D0Ai ha=3D
ve no good or bad, right or wrong.=3D0Ai see dramatic change. (over the las=
t =3D
four years.)=3D0A=3D0Aand, it is not cm that makes the change, it is the wo=
rk=3D
=3D0Athat is presented.=3DA0 i see it everywhere.=3D0A(it is remindful of t=
he gal=3D
lery owner that said...`no more crusty wood=3D0Afired pots please.`)=3D0Aht=
tp:/=3D
/www.visi.com/~melpots/=3D0Aclayart page below:=3D0Ahttp://www.visi.com/~me=
lpot=3D
s/clayart.html=3D0Ahttp://www.21stcentury=
ki=3D
lns.com/
Robert Harris on sat 25 aug 12
It's not a sudden shift; it just seems that way. Danish-
> modern minimalist pots have been around for fifty
> years or more, all through the Japanese-inspired
> gloppy-pot years. 'Pretty' had a greater fall from favor,
> but just as it's coming back strong in other artforms,
> defiantly decorative and sometimes sub-rosa
> subversive, we see it in ceramics as well.
>
>
I heartily agree. Go to the huge and fantastic V & A ceramics gallery (the
entire top floor), and in the 20th century wabi-sabi and gestural pots are
in the minority. I would even go so far as to say that their apparent
pre-dominance is purely an american phenomenon, probably related to Warren
Mackenzie's huge influence. Which is not to say that in the UK and the rest
of europe it did not have its proponents, they were just not nearly as
pre-eminent.
Robert
__ __ on sat 25 aug 12
For my background, I associate perfect pottery with the Chinese
Imperial kilns, and Neo-Confucius ideals with the Korean porcelain.
Both of them I admire.
I associate Scandinavian pottery with architects and designers. You
can always find Scandinavian ceramics at design museums.
Right now, there is a lovely exhibition of Scandinavian ceramics 1930s
- 1960s at Terminal 2, San Francisco airport if you are in the area
(maybe you need a plane ticket too.)
I reckon they would like Scandinavia ceramics more in California
because of the growth of Heath Ceramics and their love of mid-century
furniture, and their version of the Arts & Crafts movement. But I'm
only guessing.
May
Brooklyn NY
--
http://www.artspan.org/artist/mayluk
James Freeman on sat 25 aug 12
I think this whole line of reasoning begs the question of what is
expressive.
I have often heard that loose pots are expressive, while tight work is
described as sterile, or lifeless, or some such. I must say that I have
never understood this. I believe the tight pot is just as expressive as
the loose pot; it is just expressive of a different thing.
To describe my own work as "tight" is an understatement. My thrown work in
particular often looks as though it would pop if pricked with a pin. Even
when I make loose pots, such as my wood-fired "bumpy" pots or my side-fired
Dick Lehman bottles, they start as tight forms which I then beat up with a
stick or a rib. Those who know me also know that my mind is rather tightly
structured. I work through problems methodically, even if only in the
methodical application of intuition. Given the structure of my thinking, I
offer that a tight pot is absolutely expressive of my own unique
personality. My loose pottery is me just "faking it", and though on the
surface it may appear more expressive, it is in actuality less so. It is
essentially a pottery version of a fractal, a seemingly chaotic and "loose"
construct that is actually the result of a structured process.
Why is it that the honest reflection of a loosely structured mind is
considered expressive, but the honest reflection of a tightly structured
mind is considered sterile, soulless, cold? I think we betray a certain
Leachian prejudice here.
My friend and firing partner Jason makes very loose, "expressive" pottery.
We just completed an interesting project together, about which I am
outlining an article intended for publication. We decided to each throw
six pots in our standard styles, then exchange raw, untrimmed greenware to
be finished as the other person saw fit. Jason had great difficulty
working with my forms. He had trouble trying to make my forms his own. I
looked at his pots a different way. Since my aesthetic tends to be a bit
industrial and "engineered", I looked at his forms as mere components, as
design inputs, and asked them what they wanted to be. Though he tried to
mess with me by throwing mugs for four of his six pieces (trying to force
me to make mugs against my will!), I found the process quite easy and
enjoyable. Each of his forms told me exactly what they wanted to be in my
world, regardless of how Jason may have intended them. It seems that
perhaps a tightly structured mind has an easier time of seeing things for
what they are and then simply working with the material at hand, while the
loosely structured mind seems to have a bit of difficulty in adapting to
more structured inputs or situations. At least, this was so in our case.
I put photos of my work with Jason's forms on my Flickr page, if anyone is
curious: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/ . The bottle
and the ewer are each actually two of Jason's mug forms. The little teapot
was a saki bottle with a very loose neck and lip. I trimmed off the clay
that would have formed the foot, then turned it on an angle. I seem not to
have photographed the final piece.
In any case, I do not think that tight work is merely about perfection and
technique. I believe that tight, highly wrought work is just as expressive
of a tight mind as loose work is of a more fluid personality. We just need
to look at it with a more open mind.
All the best.
...James
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
revivalsteph@yahoo.com on sat 25 aug 12
I would agree with you James, that is well put.
Perhaps the word perfection does not describe this particular dynamic =
=3D
and
leads instead to artificial comparisons. i think it really is about
different personalities, different individuals making different work. My=
=3D
mind does not do well with surgically dissecting and defining abstract
concepts, and perfection is a wormhole of a concept for me.
. I'm one of those who will tend to say perfection is nowhere and perfect=
=3D
ion
is everywhere .
Or maybe , there are wringers and there are flingers and everything in
between and then some!
S. Stephenson
James wrote , "I believe that tight, highly wrought work is just as expre=
=3D
ssive
of a tight mind as loose work is of a more fluid personality. We just ne=
=3D
ed
to look at it with a more open mind."
Dannon Rhudy on sat 25 aug 12
James said:
......just completed an interesting project together........We decided to
each throw
six pots in our standard styles, then exchange raw, untrimmed greenware to
be finished as the other person saw fit...........
I remember that in grad school one of our early assignments was
to make some work (thrown or not) and exchange with another student
at the greenware stage, to be finished as we saw fit. I saw it
as something fun to do, but many were practically frozen in terms
of finishing the work. They struggled with whether to try to
"make it look like Joe's work" or whether to make whatever changes
occurred to them. It was an interesting project overall, but most
of the pieces did not turn out well. Perhaps it was taken too
seriously/competitively. Eventually it occurred to us that the
professors were just wanting to stir us around, make us think a
little more about possibility, and a little less about what we already
knew how to do.
I must agree that "tight" and "loose" are not predictive about "bad"
or 'good". They are simply descriptive.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
Vince Pitelka on sat 25 aug 12
Snail Scott wrote:
"Any trend contains, so to speak, the seeds of its own revolution. Crusty,
wabi-sabi, gestural, raw, etc - these had a real heyday, and it lasted a
while. I do think that the greater the dominance of a particular style, the
more thoroughly it gets pushed aside later on. The ubiquity of the rough,
unfussy woodfired aesthetic for so long almost guarantees that it will be
just as thoroughly supplanted for a while."
Hi Snail -
I was never particularly excited about crusty woodfired pot, but I love fin=
e
woodfired pots, and this is an area that serious woodfirers are just
beginning to explore. What is happening is that people are growing tired of
the heavy-handed, overdone effects of a woodfiring that dumps way too much
ash on the pots with not enough fluxing of that ash. If you want to see
some fine contemporary woodfired pots you should see the work that Paul
Herman and his woodfiring friend Joe Winter are doing in their big anagama.
That is something that will continue for a very long time - sensitive and
effective use of glazes kissed by the effects of the woodfiring.
The concept that "gestural . . . had its heyday" is just plain bizarre. On=
e
would hope for "gestural" in any fine pot. "Gestural" may be one of the
most misunderstood words in art/craft. Think of all the gestures of the
human body. If a pot does not have gesture, it is dead.
Another very widely misunderstood word is "loose." I love the concept of
soft clay on a slow wheel, where the natural movements of the human body ar=
e
clearly visible in the finished pot. Nothing wrong with a very tight
Scandinavian or Chinese aesthetic, but to assume that ceramics is headed
back in that direction is a little strange. I know you didn't say that, bu=
t
others seem to be implying it. A lot of the best work being done today is
loose and very gestural.
If a person is inclined to make very tight, controlled pots, that is fine,
but altogether too often people treat the potter's wheel like a machinist
lathe and assume that ever-greater levels of symmetry and perfection are th=
e
logical goals of working on the wheel. They aren't, unless one's
inclinations really go in that direction. I always teach my students that
they should never let the wheel's capabilities and limitations dictate thei=
r
aesthetic capabilities and inclinations.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
KATHI LESUEUR on sat 25 aug 12
On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>=3D20
> <concept of
> soft clay on a slow wheel, where the natural movements of the human =3D
body are
> clearly visible in the finished pot. Nothing wrong with a very tight
> Scandinavian or Chinese aesthetic, but to assume that ceramics is =3D
headed
> back in that direction is a little strange......
> If a person is inclined to make very tight, controlled pots, that is =3D
fine,
> but altogether too often people treat the potter's wheel like a =3D
machinist
> lathe and assume that ever-greater levels of symmetry and perfection =3D
are the
> logical goals of working on the wheel. >>=3D20
I've always admired people who can throw loose. I love the look of =3D
throwing marks naturally occurring on a pot. I just can't do it. Goes =3D
against my nature. So, mine are tight and refined. Glazing is where I am =
=3D
able to loosen up, splash the glaze around, over lay another on top and =3D
just let loose. Let the kiln do it's work and surprise me. Interesting =3D
that most people who throw really loose pots have very subdued glazing =3D
technique.
KATHI LESUEUR
http://www.lesueurclaywork.com=3D
Robert Harris on sat 25 aug 12
Vince - I don't know if this fits in to your fine woodfired definition, but
I have always loved John Leach's woodfired stuff, especially his bottles.
There is never any excess ash, but some amazing gently fire-licked pots.
R
Robert Harris on sat 25 aug 12
James ...
As a self-declared tightist (although not necessarily a perfectionist),
which I freely admit stems from an engineered mind ... thank you
Keep well,
Robert
Robert Harris on sun 26 aug 12
Lee, last time I looked 3-D printers don't make ceramics so this is a
pointless thing to say.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Lee wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Robert Harris
> wrote:
> > For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> > pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> > undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
>
> The new 3D printers are more than capable.
>
> Do something the machines can't, or make sure you have another source
> of income to funnel toward paying people to buy your work.
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.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
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee on sun 26 aug 12
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Robert Harris w=
=3D
rote:
> Lee, last time I looked 3-D printers don't make ceramics so this is a
> pointless thing to say.
You are not paying attention Robert. Someone posted articles here
not long ago.
There are pages of articles on ceramic 3D printing.
http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/ART/ART.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331153010.htm
http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/Medical.html
http://replicatorinc.com/blog/2009/04/yabba-dabba-3d-printers/
http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/1559-An-Open-Source-Powder-Based-3D-=
=3D
Printer-Is-Desktop-Laser-Sintering-on-the-Horizon.html
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Digital-UV-printer-3D-printer-ceram=
=3D
ic-printer-porcelain-printer/203347_502206116.html
http://pp3dp.com/
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Digital-UV-printer-3D-printer-ceram=
=3D
ic-printer-porcelain-printer/203347_502206116.html
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.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
Vince Pitelka on sun 26 aug 12
Robert Harris wrote:
"Vince - I don't know if this fits in to your fine woodfired definition, bu=
t
I have always loved John Leach's woodfired stuff, especially his bottles.
There is never any excess ash, but some amazing gently fire-licked pots."
Hi Robert -
"Fire licked" is a wonderful way to put it, because one can envision that
tongue of flame and the way it finds its way through the kiln among the
pots.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Gayle Bair on sun 26 aug 12
Well , "if it isn't perfect it might not sell" has not been my experience.
I must say selling imperfect pieces is not something I often do and our
house is is a testament to that statement!
Recently I had a commission for a platter and made two of them to be safe.
The claybody I use a claybody is listed as a ^6 porcelain because I need a
very smooth clay body for my sgraffito work. Both of them looked great as
I pulled them out but as soon as they were eye level I groaned when I saw
the rims had slumped.
When the customer came I was apologetic and said I'd try again. She loved
it and said that I was too picky and it was not an issue for her. I cut the
price in half so she left very happy but must admit it bugs me!
Now I need some advice on the slumping issues I've had but that'll be
another posting.
Gayle
Gayle Bair Pottery
gayle@claybair.com
www.claybair.com
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Sumi von Dassow wrote:
> I was kind of thinking the same thing. It may have to do with economic
> uncertainty. If it isn't perfect it might not sell and these are hard
> times for many. Hemlines of course are famous for moving with the
> economy, too.
>
> Sumi
>
>> I think perhaps changes in aesthetics move with the length of our
>> hemlines.
>> Maybe crusty wood-fired pots belong to an era of no holds barred
>> streakers?
>>
>> Sharon Wetherby
>> Fort Worth, TX, USA
>>
>>
>>
Des & Jan Howard on sun 26 aug 12
Mel
Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
Des
On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
-32.656072 149.840624
veenaraghavan@cs.com on sun 26 aug 12
I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years has =
=3D
almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the gla=
=3D
zing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look very =
=3D
machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me. I gues=
=3D
s the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade? I don=
=3D
't quite get it.
Veena
On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
veenaraghavan@cs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Des & Jan Howard
To: Clayart
Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:27 am
Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
Mel
Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
Des
On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
-32.656072 149.840624
=3D20
Robert Harris on sun 26 aug 12
For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because you
have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
actually be made by a machine.
Robert
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, veenaraghavan@cs.com
wrote:
> I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years ha=
s
> almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
> glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
> very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me.=
I
> guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade?=
I
> don't quite get it.
>
> Veena
>
>
> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>
>
>
> veenaraghavan@cs.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Des & Jan Howard
> To: Clayart
> Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:27 am
> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
>
>
> Mel
> Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
> Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
> Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
> beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
> Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
> Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
> thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
> Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
> attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
> Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
> midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
> slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
> Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
> Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
> Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
> 12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
>
>
> Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
> 43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
> English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
> electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
> Des
>
>
> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>
> --
> Des & Jan Howard
> Lue Pottery
> Lue NSW
> Australia
> 2850
>
> 02 6373 6419
> www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
> -32.656072 149.840624
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 26 aug 12
Hi Veena, all,
Any Links to images of examples?
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "veenaraghavan@cs.com"
I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years has
almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me. I
guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade? I
don't quite get it.
Veena
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 26 aug 12
Nor is it at all clear just what the phrase 'made by machine' is supposed t=
o
mean, anyway.
Or it means different things to different people's imaginings.
A Potter's Wheel is a 'Machine' - does it 'make' the Pot?
No, of course not.
But would it make sense to say a Hand Thrown Pot made on a Potter's Wheel,
is made WITH a Machine?
Yes...
What does 'Made by Machine' mean? Automated Manufacturing Process? And no
one Operating the Machine even?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Harris"
> For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
> Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because
> you
> have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
> actually be made by a machine.
>
> Robert
veenaraghavan@cs.com on sun 26 aug 12
Hi Robert,
I think I may not have expressed myself very well in my previous post. I wa=
=3D
s not talking about tightness, nor did I mean that a potter should not try =
=3D
to produce perfect pieces. In fact, if a piece does not live up to my stand=
=3D
ards of perfection, even if others say it is just fine and the flaw or flaw=
=3D
s does or do not matter, it will go into my collection of pot samples for i=
=3D
deas or just go in the trash. What I meant was that much of the work one se=
=3D
es in pottery magazines and in some galleries, looks as if it was not handc=
=3D
rafted. Everything is too perfect, and each piece looks exactly like the ot=
=3D
her, on close inspection, not even the slightest difference. These pieces, =
=3D
to my eye, look too perfect and lack the personality and touch of handmade.=
=3D
To me, they have no soul. They may be made by hand, but to me the creator'=
=3D
s hand has become a machine. I am sure these sell very well, but I would no=
=3D
t buy one. That is just my own peculiar take.
Veena
Veena
For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because you
have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
actually be made by a machine.
Robert
veenaraghavan@cs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Harris
To: Clayart
Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because you
have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
actually be made by a machine.
Robert
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, veenaraghavan@cs.com
wrote:
> I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years ha=
=3D
s
> almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
> glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
> very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me.=
=3D
I
> guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade?=
=3D
I
> don't quite get it.
>
> Veena
>
>
> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>
>
>
> veenaraghavan@cs.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Des & Jan Howard
> To: Clayart
> Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:27 am
> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
>
>
> Mel
> Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
> Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
> Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
> beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
> Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
> Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
> thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
> Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
> attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
> Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
> midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
> slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
> Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
> Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
> Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
> 12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
>
>
> Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
> 43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
> English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
> electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
> Des
>
>
> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>
> --
> Des & Jan Howard
> Lue Pottery
> Lue NSW
> Australia
> 2850
>
> 02 6373 6419
> www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
> -32.656072 149.840624
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
=3D20
veenaraghavan@cs.com on sun 26 aug 12
Hi Phil,
You can just look at any of the high end ceramic magazines for examples.
All the best.
Veena
Hi Veena, all,
Any Links to images of examples?
Phil
L v
veenaraghavan@cs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pdp1
To: Clayart
Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
Hi Veena, all,
Any Links to images of examples?
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "veenaraghavan@cs.com"
I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years has
almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me. I
guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade? I
don't quite get it.
Veena
=3D20
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 26 aug 12
I wish I knew what we imagine ourselves to be talking about here with this.
Will someone kindly provide some examples of Pottery "Made by Machine'?
I am not aware of any Pottery Manufacturing concerns using such a process.
Slip Casting, yes..."Made by Machine", someone is going to have to show me
the examples they have in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Harris"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
> For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
> Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because
> you
> have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
> actually be made by a machine.
>
> Robert
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, veenaraghavan@cs.com
> wrote:
>
>> I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years
>> has
>> almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
>> glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
>> very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me=
.
>> I
>> guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade=
?
>> I
>> don't quite get it.
>>
>> Veena
>>
>>
>> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
>> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
>> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>>
>>
>>
>> veenaraghavan@cs.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Des & Jan Howard
>> To: Clayart
>> Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:27 am
>> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
>>
>>
>> Mel
>> Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
>> Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
>> Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
>> beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
>> Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
>> Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
>> thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
>> Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
>> attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
>> Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
>> midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
>> slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
>> Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
>> Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
>> Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
>> 12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
>>
>>
>> Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
>> 43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
>> English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
>> electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
>> Des
>>
>>
>> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>> > having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
>> > please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
>> > fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>>
>> --
>> Des & Jan Howard
>> Lue Pottery
>> Lue NSW
>> Australia
>> 2850
>>
>> 02 6373 6419
>> www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
>> -32.656072 149.840624
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris on mon 27 aug 12
Lee, I have to apologise - yes there is now ceramic 3-d printing.
But I also found these pages
http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/ART/Pages/John_Balistreri.html#13
http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/ART/Pages/John_Balistreri.html#14
http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/ART/ART.html
which are pretty loose looking pots - so I'm still not sure why it's
exactly an argument for loose versus tight.
Perhaps you would be able to tell the difference, but I cannot.
I suppose you could also say - well every loose pot has more differences,
is more unique. OK - and how does that make it better? It is as the very
best a psychological argument about how humans value things.
Interestingly, I also thought, during the early part of this conversation
on perfectionism (rather than tight versus loose), that some of your
teabowls are put in special boxes and sold for very high prices. Presumably
because those ones were extra special ... doesn't this in fact argue that
you too are looking for some particular ideal of perfection? You are in
fact declaring some of your work as more 'perfect' than others?
Robert
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Lee wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Robert Harris
> wrote:
> > Lee, last time I looked 3-D printers don't make ceramics so this is a
> > pointless thing to say.
>
> You are not paying attention Robert. Someone posted articles here
> not long ago.
> There are pages of articles on ceramic 3D printing.
>
>
> http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/ART/ART.html
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331153010.htm
> http://www.ceramic3dprinting.com/Site/Medical.html
> http://replicatorinc.com/blog/2009/04/yabba-dabba-3d-printers/
>
> http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/1559-An-Open-Source-Powder-Based-3=
=3D
D-Printer-Is-Desktop-Laser-Sintering-on-the-Horizon.html
>
> http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Digital-UV-printer-3D-printer-cer=
=3D
amic-printer-porcelain-printer/203347_502206116.html
> http://pp3dp.com/
>
> http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Digital-UV-printer-3D-printer-cer=
=3D
amic-printer-porcelain-printer/203347_502206116.html
>
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.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
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerholdclay on mon 27 aug 12
I still remember the first art show where I saw my first ( or at least the =
f=3D
irst I identified) mold made loose pot fully equipped with throwing rings, =
a=3D
nd finger marks where the piece was lifted off the wheel. Only problem was=
t=3D
he poor job the "artist" did of removing the mold marks.
Paul
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:07 PM, "veenaraghavan@cs.com" =
w=3D
rote:
> Hi Robert,
>=3D20
> I think I may not have expressed myself very well in my previous post. I =
w=3D
as not talking about tightness, nor did I mean that a potter should not try=
t=3D
o produce perfect pieces. In fact, if a piece does not live up to my standa=
r=3D
ds of perfection, even if others say it is just fine and the flaw or flaws =
d=3D
oes or do not matter, it will go into my collection of pot samples for idea=
s=3D
or just go in the trash. What I meant was that much of the work one sees i=
n=3D
pottery magazines and in some galleries, looks as if it was not handcrafte=
d=3D
. Everything is too perfect, and each piece looks exactly like the other, o=
n=3D
close inspection, not even the slightest difference. These pieces, to my e=
y=3D
e, look too perfect and lack the personality and touch of handmade. To me, =
t=3D
hey have no soul. They may be made by hand, but to me the creator's hand ha=
s=3D
become a machine. I am sure these sell very well, but I would not buy one.=
T=3D
hat is just my own peculiar take.
>=3D20
> Veena
>=3D20
> Veena
>=3D20
> For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
> Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because y=
o=3D
u
> have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
> actually be made by a machine.
>=3D20
> Robert
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> veenaraghavan@cs.com
>=3D20
>=3D20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Harris
> To: Clayart
> Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 5:36 pm
> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
>=3D20
>=3D20
> For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
> Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because y=
o=3D
u
> have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
> actually be made by a machine.
>=3D20
> Robert
>=3D20
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, veenaraghavan@cs.com
> wrote:
>=3D20
>> I too find the trend to perfection in ceramics over the past few years h=
a=3D
s
>> almost taken the personality out of many pots--the form is perfect, the
>> glazing is perfect, finishing just so, and so on. The results to me look
>> very machine-made as opposed to handmade, and that does not appeal to me=
.=3D
I
>> guess the market demands have influenced this, but then why buy handmade=
?=3D
I
>> don't quite get it.
>>=3D20
>> Veena
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>>> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
>>> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
>>> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> veenaraghavan@cs.com
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Des & Jan Howard
>> To: Clayart
>> Sent: Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:27 am
>> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> Mel
>> Very briefly. My own observations over 44 years.
>> Early '60s blah pots, I'd rather not think about them.
>> Late '60s - early '70s appreciation of simple but
>> beautiful Chinese glazes & Zen inspired asymmetry,
>> Chinese styled woodfiring developing.
>> Late '70s - early '80s, simple glazes become excuse for
>> thin &/or boring glazes, asymmetry become clumsy.
>> Buyers developing taste for well-made pots with
>> attractive glaze work. Some work very well crafted.
>> Late '80s - late '90s anagama style wood firing, cone 6
>> midfired work. Both interesting at start, one becomes
>> slaggy & snotty, t'other boring.
>> Late '90s - now, wheel turning to Mel's comments.
>> Visitor to me, "I love these glazes, latest colours".
>> Self to visitor, "That one's 11thC Chinese, that one's
>> 12thC, that one's 14thC & that one's 16thC Japanese".
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> Oh! I've recently been making my first earthenware for
>> 43 years. Strictly for my medieval activities, 15thC
>> English "Tudor ware", copper & lead glazes, 03
>> electric, gorgeous colours. Hello Tony!
>> Des
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>> On 26/08/2012 12:03 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>>> having digested the latest copy of `ceramics monthly`....
>>> please discuss the movement in ceramics to very
>>> fussy, well crafted, almost perfect ceramics.
>>=3D20
>> --
>> Des & Jan Howard
>> Lue Pottery
>> Lue NSW
>> Australia
>> 2850
>>=3D20
>> 02 6373 6419
>> www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
>> -32.656072 149.840624
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>=3D20
>=3D20
Snail Scott on mon 27 aug 12
On Aug 26, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Lee, last time I looked 3-D printers don't make ceramics so this is a
> pointless thing to say...
Actually, John Balistreri has been heading up a project to do exactly
that. Instead of plastic resins, the printed object is made of ceramic
clay with organic binders that burn off in firing. I've seen the stuff
he'd doing. It's not art, not just yet, but it's close, and the process is
not a substitute for the wheel or the hand or even slipcasting. It does
things that no other process can do, including producing a ceramic
object directly from a digital design, fabricating complex internally-
contained elements, and things that are too delicate for human
handling. Using it as a substitute for existing processes would be
absurd - it's just not efficient for that, at least not for a while. What i=
t
does is open up a new range of possibilities.
When PMC (Precious Metal Clay) was first imported into the US, a
friend of mine was the first US product manager. He worked for a
jewelers' supply company, and they marketed the stuff to jewelers.
It seemed like a natural, after all. It didn't really catch on, though. To
jewelers who'd spent their lives learning to cast and solder metal,
it seemed like an overpriced, unnecessary shortcut to something
better achieved by other means. (And perhaps, I think, seen as
devaluing the effort they had spent acquiring those skills.) PMC
really took off when it was marketed to people that knew nothing
about metal: ceramics folks who could use their existing clay skills
on a new medium, bead-stringing jewelry makers and glass bead
makers who could augment their line with a new material. It also
caught on, perhaps most of all, with hobbyists, who could suddenly
make real metal objects without the years of training (and all the
equipment) needed previously. All you needed was a tiny kiln of
the sort used for enameling, and some folks still had those left
over from the enameling fad of the '70's.
I think that 3-D ceramic printing isn't going to be adopted by present
ceramic artists, for reasons similar to the resistance of silversmiths
to PMC. Its niche will be found with people outside of clay: sculptors
who don't want to mess with clay but want a ceramic product, those
who don't care for the learning curve needed in standard clayworking,
and digital design folks who have a new output medium for their ideas.
And they will not be bound by preconceptions of what the medium is
for and what forms are suitable. Best to start fresh, as most of our
habits of thought are likely running on an inappropriate track. Too
much familiarity may be as blinding as too little, when confronted
with new possibilities.
-Snail
James Freeman on mon 27 aug 12
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Snail Scott wr=
ote:
Actually, John Balistreri has been heading up a project to do exactly
that. Instead of plastic resins, the printed object is made of ceramic
clay
I researched ceramic printers years ago, when they were first being
introduced. One of the comments attached to an article on the technology
really made me laugh. The gentleman said, "Great! Now my computer can
make its own crappy ash tray!"
One of my friends is currently researching these things for possible
acquisition by his university. He recently returned from a symposium on
the technology. He told me that to produce anything of even remotely
decent quality, one has to spend at least $30,000. He said that the "real"
3D ceramic printers such as the one Mr. Balistreri has been using run about
$250,000,. He said that the inexpensive ones that we might be able to
afford produce terrible results, and are essentially just converted inkjet
printers.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Robert Harris on mon 27 aug 12
I've got a friend who runs one (just resin I think) for an architecture
department. He says that for anything over 4 inches in the smallest
dimension he needs at least an overnight run.
The models are built up in progressive layers so the taller it is (which
you would ensure was the smallest dimension), the longer it takes.
Not sure what quality it is, but I think it is at least a $100K machine.
Basically they're good for complex parts and prototypes, but that's about
it at the moment.
Robert
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM, James Freeman <
jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Snail Scott > >wrote:
>
> Actually, John Balistreri has been heading up a project to do exactly
> that. Instead of plastic resins, the printed object is made of ceramic
> clay
>
>
>
>
>
> I researched ceramic printers years ago, when they were first being
> introduced. One of the comments attached to an article on the technology
> really made me laugh. The gentleman said, "Great! Now my computer can
> make its own crappy ash tray!"
>
> One of my friends is currently researching these things for possible
> acquisition by his university. He recently returned from a symposium on
> the technology. He told me that to produce anything of even remotely
> decent quality, one has to spend at least $30,000. He said that the "rea=
l"
> 3D ceramic printers such as the one Mr. Balistreri has been using run abo=
ut
> $250,000,. He said that the inexpensive ones that we might be able to
> afford produce terrible results, and are essentially just converted inkje=
t
> printers.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
> -Euripides
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Snail Scott on mon 27 aug 12
On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, James Freeman wrote:
> I researched ceramic printers years ago...He said that the "real"
> 3D ceramic printers such as the one Mr. Balistreri has been using run abo=
ut
> $250,000,. He said that the inexpensive ones that we might be able to
> afford produce terrible results, and are essentially just converted inkje=
t
> printers...
Yes, it's a long way from being studio-level technology,
but the same was true of 3-D resin printers just two years
ago. Now, a basic one costs about the same as small
gas kiln or a decent used car: pricey but not out of reach
for the successful or motivated artist.
Price will come down if (or when) buyer demand drives
economies of scale in manufacturing. And demand will
follow a sense of broader applications. Who, forty years
ago, thought that artists would own computers? As with
any high-dollar tool, though, it will only make sense for
those whose work requires it.
It's an interesting relationship between tools and work:
does our work demand the use of certain tools, or does
the nature of our tools constrain the form of our work?
For most, I think, the answer falls in the middle, as part
of an ongoing feedback loop of refinement. We choose
tools that facilitate the work we have in mind, but we
adapt our work to what our tools can achieve. It's only
beginners that waste time attempting things that their
tools don't properly lend themselves to. Novices, and
visionaries. We can get brainwashed by our tools
into thinking only in terms of their optimal use, scarcely
aware of all the ideas we've never had because they
didn't fit our mode of working, a mode that we thought
we'd arrived at freely in order to make our ideas.
That's why I think that any development in 3-D printed
ceramics won't be driven by people already adept at
ceramics. It'll come from left field, with people who don't
know what the hell a throwing rib or a trimming loop
are, but have ideas that call out for another sort of tool.
When I started grad school, I was told that the engineering
department had a 3-D resin printer, and I could get the
use of it if I needed it. I loved the idea, but never came up
with an idea that was better off in computer-generated
resin. I'm pretty sure the ideas were out there in the ether
somewhere, but I was too comfortable with my existing
thought patterns, formed in a long dialogue with my tools,
materials, and prior processes, to see the possibilities.
At some point we will reach a critical mass of fresh thought
from people who aren't already set in their craft, and this
stuff will be bustin' out all over. I'm looking forward to it.
-Snail
Ric Swenson on mon 27 aug 12
One thing I have not seen mentioned...although I may have missed it... In t=
his discussion of tight vs loose and perfection, etc. is the character of t=
he clay you work with. Clays have differing characteristics from place to =
place..continent to continent. The way people work with their local/availab=
le clay bodies will affect their method of work to some extent, I believe..=
..as well as the shortness, texture, thixotropic properties, plasticity, et=
c. Which machines are used to throw or form the piece? Kickwheel? sitting =
at a brent or shimpo electric? standing at a Kloppenstein with a treadle? T=
hese variables need also be considered when talking about perfection/loose/=
tight, etc.
This occurred to me as I consider the porcelains available here in Jingdezh=
en. Aside from the obvious influence of the courts of the Empeors...seekin=
g what they considered to be beautiful works, the porcelain here , even tho=
ugh the green-strength is outstanding, the clay is nearly impossible to thr=
ow on the wheel...anything bigger than a 6-8 inch bowl will collapse unless=
the walls are quite thick...work must be done quickly and there is a lot o=
f dry trimming done when the pieces are bone dry. Lathe- like perfection =
as Vince says.
Maybe Tony, who has experienced this phenom up close and personal will chim=
e in too.
My work...thrown with JDZ porcelain and textured as I am wont to do, invari=
ably ends up a bit heavy, compared to those who trim not only the outside, =
but also the inside of thrown forms. I have not mastered the inside trimmin=
g of a jar quite yet...a bowl, yes...a jar , no.
Throwing "loose" is better done with a stoneware clay IMHO. More tooth...m=
ore texture in the finger marks. Stoneware has some advantages in this rega=
rds...but...
One potter who has done some nice loose work with porcelain...Takeshe Usuda=
here in JDZ is an exception...his flowing bowls coated with thick celadons=
defy reality.
The motion, the wheelhead speed, the clay's "dance" with your hands, arms a=
nd body, all affect your loose/tight methods. Certainly there is magic in t=
he frozen motion expressed by some in clay forms..
Well, enough said for now.
New semester starts here Sept 3. Looking forward to seeing all those eager=
frosh faces!
Ric
Ric Swenson, B.F.A, M.F.A.
Ceramist, Artist and Teacher.
Jing De Zhen Ceramic Institute
Jing De Zhen City,
Jiang Xi Province
China
Mobile: 86-13767818872
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:50:56 -0700
> From: pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET
> Subject: Re: new topic/perfection
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>
> Nor is it at all clear just what the phrase 'made by machine' is supposed=
to
> mean, anyway.
>
> Or it means different things to different people's imaginings.
>
> A Potter's Wheel is a 'Machine' - does it 'make' the Pot?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> But would it make sense to say a Hand Thrown Pot made on a Potter's Wheel=
,
> is made WITH a Machine?
>
> Yes...
>
>
> What does 'Made by Machine' mean? Automated Manufacturing Process? And no
> one Operating the Machine even?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Harris"
>
>
> > For Veena and Lee - I would argue that there is plenty of ultra tight
> > pottery being made that absolutely cannot be made by machine because of
> > undercuts, odd curves, fluting etc.
> > Just because it "looks" as if it "could be" machine made purely because
> > you
> > have subjectively pigeonholed it as "right", does not mean it could
> > actually be made by a machine.
> >
> > Robert
Rimas VisGirda on tue 28 aug 12
Paul says:=3D0AI still remember the first art show where I saw my first ( o=
r =3D
at least the f=3D3D=3D0Airst I identified) mold made loose pot fully equipp=
ed w=3D
ith throwing rings,=3DA0 a=3D3D=3D0And finger marks where the piece was lif=
ted of=3D
f the wheel.=3DA0 Only problem was t=3D3D=3D0Ahe poor job the "artist" did =
of rem=3D
oving the mold marks.=3D0A=3D0AHi Paul, I'd be interested to know when and =
wher=3D
e you spotted that pot, it might have been mine. In the late 70's, early 80=
=3D
's I threw a series of pots that I then added flash to make them look as if=
=3D
they were cast and not cleaned up very well... I was in Minnesota at the t=
=3D
ime.=3D0A-Rimas=3D0A
Gerholdclay on tue 28 aug 12
This was in the early eighties at Longs Park and no they were not yours. T=
h=3D
e mold marks were tiny and only in a few areas on a couple of pots. When I=
a=3D
sked how they were made he said everything to imply without actually saying=
t=3D
hey were one of a kind pieces. Of course over the length of the show saw m=
a=3D
ny identical pots with same shapes and different glazes.
Maybe he was a truly great thrower who just added very minute mold marks to=
m=3D
ess with other potters heads but I kind of doubt it.
Paul
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Rimas VisGirda wrote:
> Paul says:
> I still remember the first art show where I saw my first ( or at least th=
e=3D
f=3D3D
> irst I identified) mold made loose pot fully equipped with throwing rings=
,=3D
a=3D3D
> nd finger marks where the piece was lifted off the wheel. Only problem w=
a=3D
s t=3D3D
> he poor job the "artist" did of removing the mold marks.
>=3D20
> Hi Paul, I'd be interested to know when and where you spotted that pot, i=
t=3D
might have been mine. In the late 70's, early 80's I threw a series of pot=
s=3D
that I then added flash to make them look as if they were cast and not cle=
a=3D
ned up very well... I was in Minnesota at the time.
> -Rimas
>=3D20
Snail Scott on wed 29 aug 12
On Aug 25, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Hi Snail -=3D20
> ...If you want to see
> some fine contemporary woodfired pots you should see the work that =3D
Paul
> Herman and his woodfiring friend Joe Winter are doing in their big =3D
anagama...
Actually, I've put some of my personal work into that kiln,=3D20
and own a few pieces by both Paul and Joe. Two of Joe's=3D20
mugs are ongoing favorites, at least when I can snag them=3D20
back...my SigOth takes them to work and keeps them!=3D20
> ...Nothing wrong with a very tight
> Scandinavian or Chinese aesthetic, but to assume that ceramics is =3D
headed
> back in that direction is a little strange. I know you didn't say =3D
that, but
> others seem to be implying it. A lot of the best work being done today =
=3D
is
> loose and very gestural...
Oh, it's alive and well. I, like Mel, do see a greater range and=3D20
quantity of work that cleaves to a clean, machined, highly=3D20
finished look with a less visible 'presence of the hand'. It's=3D20
not just a revival of the high-modernist or classic Asian clean=3D20
lines, either. I see influences ranging from vintage deco to=3D20
textiles, plump and sleek cartoon forms, sci-fi tech effects =3D20
and work that looks manufactured, printing and graphics=3D20
facilitated by computer printing, and a range of inspirations=3D20
from more sources than I can recall seeing in clay until fairly=3D20
recently. It's a vast, juicy, chaotic range of new work that's=3D20
exciting to see. It's not the death knell of 'lumpy 'n' brown'.=3D20
It's just riding a wave that's rising right now, and I think the=3D20
handworked aesthetic is on a bit of a downswing by=3D20
comparison. But not down and out. These phases and=3D20
fashions aren't a bad thing, and one of their effect is to=3D20
winnow out the chaff and let the best be seen in the end,=3D20
free from the clutter of fad-driven production.
-Snail
| |
|
