John Hesselberth on sat 24 oct 98
>God..... it would be good if SOMEONE would do this kind of controlled study
>for SO MANY aspects of the technical end of what we do. I'd LOVE to see
>this type of data available. It would pretty much put to rest all of the
>"it works .... it doesn't work", "it is....it isn't" controversy that
>plagues things like ITC use, salt glazing and chlorine/acid mist
>production, barium and other toxin release from glazes, and so on.
>
>This lack of information comes down to money and time, and the fact that
>most of us are artists....not scientists . While I am cetainly a
>techweenie at heart...... I'd far rather spend my time making pots than
>doing a scientific study. The tech stuff could easily turn into a full
>time job. And I certainly don't have spare thousands lying around to
>dedicate to this kind of problem (studio needs a new roof next year and my
>daughter is starting college). While I have a little science
>background..... that is not who I really am. I assume (dangerous) that one
>element or more of this scenario fits most of the other "tech-types" in the
>craft field.
>
>Maybe we need a technical research fund/endowment set up within NCECA to
>provide grants to fund just this type of ACCURATE technical studies???
>Maybe our colleges and universities need to look more at the technology
>side of the field instead of totally at the aesthetic side? Maybe we need
>more interaction with the science departments at our schools? Maybe those
>of us who teach need to beef up the technical curriculum for anyone who is
>going to be awarded the credentials of a BFA or and MFA?
>
>Maybe there also needs to be a published vehicle (other than the
>industry/engineering slanted AmCerSoc Journal) for the dissemination of
>technical ceramics information in the US....... with a solid peer review
>board looking at manuscripts before publication. (Ceramics Technical comes
>to mind as a title...... but that's taken .) CM and Clay Times are NOT
>very good at this aspect, even when they attempt it. They are more general
>readership publications. There may be a lot of good studies that are
>sitting in places like the library at Alfred that no one other than
>students there ever see, because for one thing, there is no venue to
>disseminate them through.
>
>Wow...... that got me going! Sorry. Off the soapbox.
John,
I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately this type of research
would take at least $200,000/year (1 fully supported research person) to
make any progress. A million a year would be more appropriate for
starters and much more than that could be invested wisely. The ceramic
engineering schools are mostly off chasing space, computer or other
"hi-tech" applications of ceramics. I think to make any progress, we
(the world of potters) would have to start and fund our own non-profit
research organization. Once it got up and going, it might be able to get
some NSF or public foundation support, but it would be tough. NCECA or
AmerCerSoc might be worth approaching to sponsor something like this. As
I continue to search the literature on the metal leaching question, I am
amazed at how much research was once done vs virtually none today. I am
also learning that most of that research is very outdated (like the heavy
focus on lead when hardly anyone uses it today).
Another thought. Is anyone aware of any potter oriented research being
done today at any academic institution? If there is any, perhaps we
could steer a professor or two to work on problems of interest to the
ClayArt community.
John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and
hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken, 1925
| |
|
