Ray Aldridge on sun 9 may 99
In reading through the clayart archives for the past several years, it
struck me that almost all the stoneware glaze references were for only two
heat ranges-- ^6 and ^10.
I was at the beginning of my career infected with a virulent case of LS
(Leachian Syndrome) and so for many years I made brown pots in a gas kiln,
firing to ^11, because I liked the heavy imprint of the fire on the ^10
glazes that I used. But gradually I began to find this less interesting
and began to transmute my LS to LDS (Leachian Disciple Syndrome) which
encouraged me to broaden my range to include non-brown pots. (By the way,
I don't mean to denigrate the travails of fellow Leachian sufferers-- I
still feel your pain. I just think Cardew, Pleydell-Bouverie, and Batterham
are better potters than the Master.)
To shorten a potentially long and tedious story, today I'm firing porcelain
and white stoneware in a small salt kiln and an electric kiln. I've found
that ^8 is about the optimal point for what I'm doing now-- slip imagery on
pale clay. Wear and tear on kilns and furniture is less destructive than
at ^10, and yet glazes can approach the simplicity and reliability of
glazes at ^10. I can avoid the somewhat flat and artificial quality of
many ^6 glazes (I'm aware that this is not so much the fault of the firing
range as the fault of the potter who formulates these glazes, but still, I
don't see as many nice ^6 glazes as ^10 ones.)
Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
Ray
Mo and Les Beardsley on mon 10 may 99
Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> In reading through the clayart archives for the past several years, it
> struck me that almost all the stoneware glaze references were for only two
> heat ranges-- ^6 and ^10.
>
> I was at the beginning of my career infected with a virulent case of LS
> (Leachian Syndrome) and so for many years I made brown pots in a gas kiln,
> firing to ^11, because I liked the heavy imprint of the fire on the ^10
> glazes that I used. But gradually I began to find this less interesting
> and began to transmute my LS to LDS (Leachian Disciple Syndrome) which
> encouraged me to broaden my range to include non-brown pots. (By the way,
> I don't mean to denigrate the travails of fellow Leachian sufferers-- I
> still feel your pain. I just think Cardew, Pleydell-Bouverie, and Batterham
> are better potters than the Master.)
>
> To shorten a potentially long and tedious story, today I'm firing porcelain
> and white stoneware in a small salt kiln and an electric kiln. I've found
> that ^8 is about the optimal point for what I'm doing now-- slip imagery on
> pale clay. Wear and tear on kilns and furniture is less destructive than
> at ^10, and yet glazes can approach the simplicity and reliability of
> glazes at ^10. I can avoid the somewhat flat and artificial quality of
> many ^6 glazes (I'm aware that this is not so much the fault of the firing
> range as the fault of the potter who formulates these glazes, but still, I
> don't see as many nice ^6 glazes as ^10 ones.)
>
> Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
> apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
> understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
> neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
> history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
>
> Ray
Hi Ray
This requires some experimenting. By changing the potash feldspar of a
cone 10 glaze to soda spar - kona F4 - you should be able to lower the
firing temp to cone 8 or 9. It will fire wider spectrum for you.
The use of soda may change your ph factor so you have to test but it
should work. I do this all the time. Sometimes it changes the colors
a bit.
Wish you well
Les Beardsley
NakedClay@aol.com on mon 10 may 99
Hi Ray!
Cone 8 is nary 150-200 degrees (F) less than cone 10, which I suppose is why
few potters fire to cone 8, and hence, there is a dearth of glaze recipies
for that firing range. Interestingly enough, Cone 6 is only 200-300 degrees
(F) less than cone 10, but is an extremely popular alternative to cone 10.
Milton NakedClay@AOL.COM
Wind-swept Yucca Valley, CA
Linda Blossom on mon 10 may 99
Funny thing, this firing at cone 6 or 10, or whatever...I dropped to cone 5
from 8 several years ago and found this to not be so great with most of my
glazes (except for two) and went to a full six and now realize that I always
aim for a full 7 and like the results more,.....just creeping up, I guess.
I pay little attention to what cone a glaze is supposed to be as long as it
is in the 5 to 10 range. I test glazes with little regard to their assigned
cones (excluding low fires of course) and have found some cone 10 glazes to
be rather nice at cone 6 plus. I don't find all glazes to be flat or
artificial at cone 6. Really depends on the glaze.
Linda Blossom
2366 Slaterville Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-539-7912
blossom@twcny.rr.com
To shorten a potentially long and tedious story, today I'm firing porcelain
and white stoneware in a small salt kiln and an electric kiln. I've found
that ^8 is about the optimal point for what I'm doing now-- slip imagery on
pale clay. Wear and tear on kilns and furniture is less destructive than
at ^10, and yet glazes can approach the simplicity and reliability of
glazes at ^10. I can avoid the somewhat flat and artificial quality of
many ^6 glazes (I'm aware that this is not so much the fault of the firing
range as the fault of the potter who formulates these glazes, but still, I
don't see as many nice ^6 glazes as ^10 ones.)
Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
Ray
Martin Howard on mon 10 may 99
Ray pleads for Cone 8.
I would plead for Cone 1. Here in England we can purchase clay which
matures at Cone 1. It is good stuff.
We are all, surely, trying to be green. So why this insistence on high
cones? The implication is that good pots can only be created at high
temperatures.
That is so obviously wrong thinking.
So, are there other potters out there, between raku and cone 6?
Martin Howard
Webbs Cottage Pottery and Press
Woolpits Road, Great Saling
BRAINTREE
Essex CM7 5DZ
01371 850 423
araneajo@gn.apc.org
Ron Roy on tue 11 may 99
Hi Ray,
I agree with you about this - I think cone eight is a much better temp to
fire at in electric - for a number of reasons.
It's easier to vitrify clays - not as much flux needed so ranges are
better, glazes can rely more on feldspars which are melting much better
than at 6, problems are easier to solve, glazes can have more silica and
alumina and so are more durable, and there is a cost saving on materials
that more than offsets heating and wear and tear.
In fact when I taught continuing education at Centennial college in the old
days we did fire at cone 8.
There are reasons that cone 6 became a standard - many older electric kiln
simply could not cut it, many companies don't sell cone 8 clays, some
colours are brighter at cone 6.
I think cone 8 is a better idea - and Tuckers do have a line of clay
specifically for that temp.
Many who fire to cone 6 really do fire to cone 7 - cause their glazes look
better - probably for a number of reasons - one of which is better reaction
with the clay.
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
>apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
>understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
>neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
>history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
>
>Ray
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Web page: http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
Gregory D Lamont on tue 11 may 99
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>In reading through the clayart archives for the past several years, it
>struck me that almost all the stoneware glaze references were for only two
>heat ranges-- ^6 and ^10.
>
>I was at the beginning of my career infected with a virulent case of LS
>(Leachian Syndrome) and so for many years I made brown pots in a gas kiln,
>firing to ^11, because I liked the heavy imprint of the fire on the ^10
>glazes that I used. But gradually I began to find this less interesting
>and began to transmute my LS to LDS (Leachian Disciple Syndrome) which
>encouraged me to broaden my range to include non-brown pots. (By the way,
>I don't mean to denigrate the travails of fellow Leachian sufferers-- I
>still feel your pain. I just think Cardew, Pleydell-Bouverie, and Batterham
>are better potters than the Master.)
(snipped here for brevity)
>Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
>apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
>understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
>neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
>history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
>
>Ray
Hi Ray,
This topic is somewhat related to the recent thread about electric kiln
design and construction that was on the list. I'm fear the electric kiln
manufacturer's will hop on me for saying this, but I feel there are so many
glazes designated for cone 6 because this is the highest PRACTICAL
temperature that the typical electric "hobby" kiln will reach reasonably
quickly, economically and with acceptable element life. They can reach
cone 10, but not without consuming an extraordinary amount of kilowatts and
requiring element replacement after relatively few firings. If I want to
fire than cone 6, I do it in a kiln truly designed for those
temps.--usually gas-fired, although there are some electric kilns that are
made with heavier duty elements, switchgear, thicker IFB construction,
etc.--truly designed for cone 10.
Greg
Greg Lamont
gdlamont@iastate.edu
http://www.ourwebpage.net/greglamont/
3011 Northwood Drive
Ames, IA 50010-4750
(515) 233-3442
Ray Aldridge on thu 13 may 99
At 11:40 AM 5/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi Ray,
>
>I agree with you about this - I think cone eight is a much better temp to
>fire at in electric - for a number of reasons.
>
>It's easier to vitrify clays - not as much flux needed so ranges are
>better, glazes can rely more on feldspars which are melting much better
>than at 6, problems are easier to solve, glazes can have more silica and
>alumina and so are more durable, and there is a cost saving on materials
>that more than offsets heating and wear and tear.
>
>In fact when I taught continuing education at Centennial college in the old
>days we did fire at cone 8.
>
>There are reasons that cone 6 became a standard - many older electric kiln
>simply could not cut it, many companies don't sell cone 8 clays, some
>colours are brighter at cone 6.
I'll bet you're right, especially in regard to the electric kiln question.
>
>I think cone 8 is a better idea - and Tuckers do have a line of clay
>specifically for that temp.
>
Well, I agree with everything you've said. I wish I could claim to have
come to the same conclusions through as logical a process as you've
outlined here, but it was just a fluke. I once upon a time had a ^10
porcelain body of my own formulation made up for me, but then my supplier
went belly-up and I turned to the closest substitute I could readily
obtain, which was Standard's 130 porcelain, listed as having a range of
7-9. So there you go.
I guess what I'm really curious about is how exactly ^10 came to occupy the
position of prominence that it does in North American studio pottery. I
suppose it's really just a kind of trivia quest, but sometimes I think that
if we understand where our basic assumptions come from, we might find it
easier to discard them when appropriate.
I wonder if there are any clay historians on the list. I'm strictly an
amateur historian when it comes to the development of the studio clay
movement, though I suppose I've read most of the seminal works, from Poor
to Cardew to Wildenhain.
Ray
Don & June MacDonald on thu 13 may 99
Hi Ray: I too have wondered about why Cone 10, why Cone 6. In our
area, unless you are prepared to make your own clay, and I agree with
Monona's article in the latest issue of Clay Times about "letting George
do it" (Thank you Monona), the clay bodies formulated are Cone 04,
eartenware, Cone 6 - midfire, and Cone 10. For a time I tried using
Cone 8 oxidation, but the clay bodies were not suitable. We now use
Cone 6 reduction, less wear and tear on refractories, less fuel used,
and one can get the celedons, shinos, temokus etc. just as easily at
Cone 6 as at Cone 10, if that is what you want to do. However, other
colours, light and bright ones, are also available, depends on how much
iron there is in the clay body. Cone 6 ware, so long as the clay is
mature, and the glaze fits the body, is as strong, or stronger than Cone
10, as some Cone 10 clays really are not mature yet anyway.
I suspect that Cone 10 evolved from people wanting to push the limits on
the clay and glazes, and kilns, and to melt all the rocks and ash and
slips used as the current crop of chemicals were either not available or
were more expensive. When I started pottery in the early 70s, the trend
was to reduce the clay to death almost, making the ware brittle, and
brown. A light reduction, changing the colours from iron and copper, is
much more the norm now, and so is the use of light, or almost iron free
clay bodies. In our area, brown pots simply do not sell.
June
Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> In reading through the clayart archives for the past several years, it
> struck me that almost all the stoneware glaze references were for only two
> heat ranges-- ^6 and ^10.
>
> I was at the beginning of my career infected with a virulent case of LS
> (Leachian Syndrome) and so for many years I made brown pots in a gas kiln,
> firing to ^11, because I liked the heavy imprint of the fire on the ^10
> glazes that I used. But gradually I began to find this less interesting
> and began to transmute my LS to LDS (Leachian Disciple Syndrome) which
> encouraged me to broaden my range to include non-brown pots. (By the way,
> I don't mean to denigrate the travails of fellow Leachian sufferers-- I
> still feel your pain. I just think Cardew, Pleydell-Bouverie, and Batterham
> are better potters than the Master.)
>
> To shorten a potentially long and tedious story, today I'm firing porcelain
> and white stoneware in a small salt kiln and an electric kiln. I've found
> that ^8 is about the optimal point for what I'm doing now-- slip imagery on
> pale clay. Wear and tear on kilns and furniture is less destructive than
> at ^10, and yet glazes can approach the simplicity and reliability of
> glazes at ^10. I can avoid the somewhat flat and artificial quality of
> many ^6 glazes (I'm aware that this is not so much the fault of the firing
> range as the fault of the potter who formulates these glazes, but still, I
> don't see as many nice ^6 glazes as ^10 ones.)
>
> Anyway, my question to you good folk is this: why is there so little
> apparent interest in ^8 (or to be more realistic ^7-^9) glazes? It's my
> understanding that many of the wonderful Chinese glazes that we
> neo-Leachians so admire mature in this range. Is it just an accident of
> history that ^6 and ^10 are the only ranges that many potters consider?
>
> Ray
Martin Howard on fri 14 may 99
In our area, brown pots simply do not sell. Says June MacDonald.
This is an odd thing. The current fashion in your part of your country
causes you to make one thing and not another. Yet so many pots made in
former years are now highly valued, perhaps more so than when the potter
was living in that town or village.
I regularly go to Poland. Some of friends there have very odd ideas of
cleanliness, going to extremes that, to me, seem stupid. They use white
china or glass ware. You very rarely see a brown bowl on the table. I
cannot remember one in 12 years of visiting.
Yet, the French and Italians have a completely opposite idea. Brown if
lovely.
How much is the fashion of the area due to the views of the people there
and how much is it due to the insistence of the potters and
manufacturers?
How much can we make fashion follow us, instead of we following fashion?
Signing off for a week.
Martin Howard
Webbs Cottage Pottery and Press
Woolpits Road, Great Saling
BRAINTREE
Essex CM7 5DZ
01371 850 423
araneajo@gn.apc.org
Ron Roy on mon 24 may 99
Hi Ray,
Yes I am way behind - but catching up.
About why cone 10.
You certainly do have the knack of asking meaty questions - I like that!
I think many potters like to have their glazes react with the clay - the
higher you go the more reaction. The limit is conditional on the
refractoriness of clays available - this seems to be around cone 10 for
stonewares - and a bit higher for porcelains.
Actual it takes a lot more skill to design bodies for cone 10 - especially
in reduction with iron bearing bodies - than is prevalent. Cristobalite is
not something you want much in functional bodies. It leads to a lot of
losses in tea pots and casseroles.
On the other hand it is a great temperature for make glazes at because the
feldspars are melting well. Much easier to make hard durable glazes at cone
10 as compared to cone 6 and 8.
I should think cone 9 reduction would be a good place to be but again the
available bodies seem to be for cone 10.
Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from Japan
and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower fired
with their updrafts.
How is that for some history - don't know the dates though.
Regards - RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 11:40 AM 5/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I guess what I'm really curious about is how exactly ^10 came to occupy the
>position of prominence that it does in North American studio pottery. I
>suppose it's really just a kind of trivia quest, but sometimes I think that
>if we understand where our basic assumptions come from, we might find it
>easier to discard them when appropriate.
>
>I wonder if there are any clay historians on the list. I'm strictly an
>amateur historian when it comes to the development of the studio clay
>movement, though I suppose I've read most of the seminal works, from Poor
>to Cardew to Wildenhain.
>
>Ray
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Web page: http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
John Britt on wed 26 may 99
Ron Roy,
Before any more myths get started about Leach....
I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
party in 1911.
There is quite a history of pottery before Leach was born. Chinese,
Koreans, Japanese, Germans, French, etc. Dwight (patent on stoneware
1671), Chelsea Porcelain works (1744), Seger (1751), Cooksbury "hard
paste" (1768), Stokes Pottery, StaffordshirePotteries, Wedgewood,
William Murray,Doulton, Martin Brothers, etc., etc.
Leach was no technician. After setting up his studio in England and
finding he was unable to fire the kiln, he had to have a kiln technician
brought over from Japan for two years to help him.
From: Ron Roy
Subject: Re: Why not Cone 8?
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Ray,
Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from
Japan
and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower
fired
with their updrafts.
How is that for some history - don't know the dates though.
Regards - RR
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
Ray Aldridge on wed 26 may 99
At 09:56 AM 5/24/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
>I think many potters like to have their glazes react with the clay - the
>higher you go the more reaction. The limit is conditional on the
>refractoriness of clays available - this seems to be around cone 10 for
>stonewares - and a bit higher for porcelains.
>
>Actual it takes a lot more skill to design bodies for cone 10 - especially
>in reduction with iron bearing bodies - than is prevalent. Cristobalite is
>not something you want much in functional bodies. It leads to a lot of
>losses in tea pots and casseroles.
I think this might be related to the 60s and 70s fashion for little brown
pots-- to which I certainly fell victim. We liked the "earthiness" of
iron-rich reduction stoneware. But oddly enough, when I set up my first
real studio, in the early 70s, I began using an "as-dug" stoneware, which
fired to a pale gray in reduction at ^11. I went through many tons of this
stuff, which came from central Alabama, and only gave it up due to the
labor factor. I bought it already plastic, but unfortunately, it not only
had a lot of roots and twigs in it, it also had a fair number of iron
nodules, which if left in the body , would melt out leaving holes in the
surface. So I had to run it through an extruder with a stainless mesh,
before I could wedge and throw it. But anyway, I think many of the
difficulties associated with developing a ^10+ body stem from this
preoccupation with dark iron effects. If I had my druthers, I'd be making
porcelain at ^14, the way the fire gods intended.
>
>On the other hand it is a great temperature for make glazes at because the
>feldspars are melting well. Much easier to make hard durable glazes at cone
>10 as compared to cone 6 and 8.
>
>I should think cone 9 reduction would be a good place to be but again the
>available bodies seem to be for cone 10.
>
>Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from Japan
>and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
>China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower fired
>with their updrafts.
>
>
My offlist discussions have been very interesting in this regard. Several
folk have put forward the Leach-Hamada thesis, but these Elder Gods really
didn't do much work exclusively at ^10. In fact, in Leach's _A Potter's
Book_ the glazes he gives run from Seger ^6 to 11. And in Leach's book
about Hamada, he reproduces a letter in which Hamada lists a number of his
favorite glazes, which were, Hamada says, formulated to fire at Seger ^8.
I and my offlist correspondents have mostly concluded that somewhere along
the line, ^10 was enshrined in the academic ceramics curriculum, by some
accidental intersection of coincidence, and then perpetuated from teacher
to teacher. But none of us has really put forward a convincing scenario
for what the precipitating event really was. Certainly it was before
Rhodes began exerting his maximum influence on the field, unless we pick
Rhodes as the instigator, which is plausible. _Stoneware and Porcelain_
came out in 1959, and Rhodes formulated his glazes for ^10 as a matter of
course.
By the way, I'm fairly certain the European tradition of highfire wares had
to wait for the discovery of refractory clays rather than the downdraft
kiln, since according to Cardew and others, the earliest European stoneware
kilns were updraft. According to Hamer, the updraft bottleneck kiln had
been developed by the end of the 18th century to the point that it was used
to 1300 degree C.
Anyway, this probably seems more interesting to me than to anyone else. I
don't exactly know why I'm curious, except that as a young potter I was as
much on autopilot as any other beginner, and gave little thought to the
origins of pottery memes. I looked at high-fired ware and found it more
beautiful than lowfire, and accepted the Leachian viewpoint that this was a
mystic gift of the fire gods. I suppose I still accept that view, for the
most part, though the pure faith is shored up by scientific observations
about well-developed glaze-body interfaces and so forth.
Now that I'm an old potter, I find that I spend a lot more time examining
my assumptions, which probably gets in the way of making pots.
Ah well.
Ray
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 31 may 99
Please, allow Bernard Leach himself dispel any myths bouncing around
misbegottenly in anyone's head. Leach says the following in the book
Bernard Leach: A Potters Work: "In the studio pottery of this century, the
main influence has been, not from the classic style, but a reaction
against its dominating role in the industrial field. It came, as is well
established nowadays, from Sung--China, from the Japanese tea ceremony
wares and country pottery."
Leach was aware of, was influenced by and studied Chinese and Korean
pottery, Japanese tea ceremony wares, English slipware of Thomas Toft,
Hispano-Moresque, German Bellarmines and tin glazed work from Holland,
Italy and England as well as other work from other cultures.
It can also be noted that Leach worked in a range of temperatures and
clays... from raku, slipware, stoneware, porcelain and salt glazed pottery
to low temperature enamels. The reference to those years of working at
different temperatures can be found on page 25 of the book previously
mentioned. From his initial introdution to raku pottery the temperature
at which he worked gradually climbed to stoneware temperatures.
This higher temperature pottery produced from 1935 onward, certainly, is
the work that received the most attention by the public.
Considering the technical, cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic
questions concerning the role of the potter in a modern society in his
time, one could say that Bernard Leach's role in the establishment of
pottery as a viable expressive art form in this century is undeniable.
The students who studied under him and their subsequent students have
produced a lasting pottery legacy that flippant, bald remarks simply
cannot mask.
No one has ever said that there was no pottery history prior to Leach.
But he certainly has added to that history by his writing, lecturing,
teaching and pottery making.
Furthermore, Leach's impact in the revival interest in Western pottery in
this century was instrumental, ironically, in the rise of an even more
mythical artist--Peter Voulkos. Like Pollock who reacted against the more
academic and conservative style of Thomas Hart Benton, Voulkos is a mirror
image of that same dynamic at work, only in clay.
This element of the expressive energy found within fundamental dynamic
contrasts was understood by Leach and is outlined in his numerous
discussions concerning the relative merits of both Oriental and
Occidental cultures.
More factual information about the ideas and philosophy of Leach can be
found in books like A Potters Book (published in 1940) Bernard Leach: the
Potters Challenge, Bernard Leach: A Potters Work, The Unknown Craftsman by
Soetsu Yanagi, and the catalogue called Exhibition of the Art of Bernard
Leach.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Wed, 26 May 1999, John Britt wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Ron Roy,
>
> Before any more myths get started about Leach....
>
> I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
> with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
> party in 1911.
>
> There is quite a history of pottery before Leach was born. Chinese,
> Koreans, Japanese, Germans, French, etc. Dwight (patent on stoneware
> 1671), Chelsea Porcelain works (1744), Seger (1751), Cooksbury "hard
> paste" (1768), Stokes Pottery, StaffordshirePotteries, Wedgewood,
> William Murray,Doulton, Martin Brothers, etc., etc.
>
> Leach was no technician. After setting up his studio in England and
> finding he was unable to fire the kiln, he had to have a kiln technician
> brought over from Japan for two years to help him.
>
>
>
> From: Ron Roy
> Subject: Re: Why not Cone 8?
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> Hi Ray,
>
>
> Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from
> Japan
> and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
> China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower
> fired
> with their updrafts.
>
> How is that for some history - don't know the dates though.
>
> Regards - RR
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
> Dys-Functional Pottery
> Dallas, Texas
> http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
>
John Britt on mon 31 may 99
Kevin,
I have no problem with anything you have written. But the question we were
discussing was from Ray concerning why we fire to cone 10. (See below)
I assured him that Leach was not the reason, to which he agreed.
If you have any "factual" information on this subject which I have missed
please point it out. I have searched all the Leach books I own and have found
nothing to indicate that he is the reason why we fire to cone 10. I may not
have access to all the sources you have, but would love to learn more.
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 09:56:04 EDT
From: Ron Roy
Subject: Re: Why not Cone 8?
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Ray,
Yes I am way behind - but catching up.
About why cone 10.
You certainly do have the knack of asking meaty questions - I like that!
I think many potters like to have their glazes react with the clay - the
higher you go the more reaction. The limit is conditional on the
refractoriness of clays available - this seems to be around cone 10 for
stonewares - and a bit higher for porcelains.
Actual it takes a lot more skill to design bodies for cone 10 - especially
in reduction with iron bearing bodies - than is prevalent. Cristobalite is
not something you want much in functional bodies. It leads to a lot of
losses in tea pots and casseroles.
On the other hand it is a great temperature for make glazes at because the
feldspars are melting well. Much easier to make hard durable glazes at cone
10 as compared to cone 6 and 8.
I should think cone 9 reduction would be a good place to be but again the
available bodies seem to be for cone 10.
Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from Japan
and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower fired
with their updrafts.
How is that for some history - don't know the dates though.
Regards - RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 11:40 AM 5/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I guess what I'm really curious about is how exactly ^10 came to occupy
the
>position of prominence that it does in North American studio pottery. I
>suppose it's really just a kind of trivia quest, but sometimes I think
that
>if we understand where our basic assumptions come from, we might find it
>easier to discard them when appropriate.
>
>I wonder if there are any clay historians on the list. I'm strictly an
>amateur historian when it comes to the development of the studio clay
>movement, though I suppose I've read most of the seminal works, from Poor
>to Cardew to Wildenhain.
>
>Ray
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
> Please, allow Bernard Leach himself dispel any myths bouncing around
> misbegottenly in anyone's head. Leach says the following in the book
> Bernard Leach: A Potters Work: "In the studio pottery of this century, the
> main influence has been, not from the classic style, but a reaction
> against its dominating role in the industrial field. It came, as is well
> established nowadays, from Sung--China, from the Japanese tea ceremony
> wares and country pottery."
>
> Leach was aware of, was influenced by and studied Chinese and Korean
> pottery, Japanese tea ceremony wares, English slipware of Thomas Toft,
> Hispano-Moresque, German Bellarmines and tin glazed work from Holland,
> Italy and England as well as other work from other cultures.
>
> It can also be noted that Leach worked in a range of temperatures and
> clays... from raku, slipware, stoneware, porcelain and salt glazed pottery
> to low temperature enamels. The reference to those years of working at
> different temperatures can be found on page 25 of the book previously
> mentioned. From his initial introdution to raku pottery the temperature
> at which he worked gradually climbed to stoneware temperatures.
>
> This higher temperature pottery produced from 1935 onward, certainly, is
> the work that received the most attention by the public.
>
> Considering the technical, cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic
> questions concerning the role of the potter in a modern society in his
> time, one could say that Bernard Leach's role in the establishment of
> pottery as a viable expressive art form in this century is undeniable.
>
> The students who studied under him and their subsequent students have
> produced a lasting pottery legacy that flippant, bald remarks simply
> cannot mask.
>
> No one has ever said that there was no pottery history prior to Leach.
> But he certainly has added to that history by his writing, lecturing,
> teaching and pottery making.
>
> Furthermore, Leach's impact in the revival interest in Western pottery in
> this century was instrumental, ironically, in the rise of an even more
> mythical artist--Peter Voulkos. Like Pollock who reacted against the more
> academic and conservative style of Thomas Hart Benton, Voulkos is a mirror
> image of that same dynamic at work, only in clay.
>
> This element of the expressive energy found within fundamental dynamic
> contrasts was understood by Leach and is outlined in his numerous
> discussions concerning the relative merits of both Oriental and
> Occidental cultures.
>
> More factual information about the ideas and philosophy of Leach can be
> found in books like A Potters Book (published in 1940) Bernard Leach: the
> Potters Challenge, Bernard Leach: A Potters Work, The Unknown Craftsman by
> Soetsu Yanagi, and the catalogue called Exhibition of the Art of Bernard
> Leach.
>
> Kevin A. Hluch
> 102 E. 8th St
> Frederick, MD 21701
> USA
>
> e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
> http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999, John Britt wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Ron Roy,
> >
> > Before any more myths get started about Leach....
> >
> > I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
> > with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
> > party in 1911.
> >
> > There is quite a history of pottery before Leach was born. Chinese,
> > Koreans, Japanese, Germans, French, etc. Dwight (patent on stoneware
> > 1671), Chelsea Porcelain works (1744), Seger (1751), Cooksbury "hard
> > paste" (1768), Stokes Pottery, StaffordshirePotteries, Wedgewood,
> > William Murray,Doulton, Martin Brothers, etc., etc.
> >
> > Leach was no technician. After setting up his studio in England and
> > finding he was unable to fire the kiln, he had to have a kiln technician
> > brought over from Japan for two years to help him.
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
leosmith on tue 1 jun 99
I don't want to enter the Leach Myhtology debate except to say that all
myths need to be examined carefully through time as their meaning changes
as the culture around them does. Leach and Cardew were the foundations of
my early knowledge and my aesthetics, but they have been added to by many
other influences since I started potting in 1970. That said they were and
still are very important.
On the subject of Cone 8 I would like to say that here in Australia I and
my contemporaries fired to cone 8 with cone 10 as our guard cone. These
cones were made by Harrison's in England and when they became unavailable
I converted to Orton cones. I tested them against my Harrison cones and
found that Harrison cone 8 went down at the same time as Orton cone 10.
My Leach's cone 8 glaze became Leach's cone 10 glaze overnight.
Is'nt this pottery stuff just magic??
Best Wishes
Leo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Smith
Rosedale Street Gallery
2A Rosedale Street cnr Old Canterbury Road
Dulwich Hill NSW 2203 Australia
Ph: + 61 2 9518 1182 Fax: + 61 2 9518 1183
Email: leothelion@bigfoot.com
WWW. http://www.bigfoot.com/~leothelion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 2 jun 99
John,
Doesn't the high temperature effects exemplified by Song (Chinese) and
Koryo/Yi dynasty (Korean) have some salutory influence in this discussion?
Cone 8, Cone 10, really what's the point? There were no cones until
recent times.
I mean, after all, the Asian people weren't firing at high
temperature because they simply enjoyed stoking wood, were they? The
characteristics found in that fiery realm, as you noted in your response
to Ron, are quite worthwhile.
If you would like to split hairs about this issue that is your
choice but I think the issue is considerably broader than "CONES".
Certainly, if YOU have found the characteristics of cone 10 ceramics
(ie, shinos, ash glaze covered pots) to be worthwhile, then
Leach might have been perceptive enough to have discerned the same thing.
We are dealing with perceptive, creative, intelligent people (from
various continents) here and you, among others, should appreciate this.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Britt wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Kevin,
>
> I have no problem with anything you have written. But the question we were
> discussing was from Ray concerning why we fire to cone 10. (See below)
>
> I assured him that Leach was not the reason, to which he agreed.
>
> If you have any "factual" information on this subject which I have missed
> please point it out. I have searched all the Leach books I own and have found
> nothing to indicate that he is the reason why we fire to cone 10. I may not
> have access to all the sources you have, but would love to learn more.
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 09:56:04 EDT
> From: Ron Roy
> Subject: Re: Why not Cone 8?
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi Ray,
>
> Yes I am way behind - but catching up.
>
> About why cone 10.
>
> You certainly do have the knack of asking meaty questions - I like that!
>
> I think many potters like to have their glazes react with the clay - the
> higher you go the more reaction. The limit is conditional on the
> refractoriness of clays available - this seems to be around cone 10 for
> stonewares - and a bit higher for porcelains.
>
> Actual it takes a lot more skill to design bodies for cone 10 - especially
> in reduction with iron bearing bodies - than is prevalent. Cristobalite is
> not something you want much in functional bodies. It leads to a lot of
> losses in tea pots and casseroles.
>
> On the other hand it is a great temperature for make glazes at because the
> feldspars are melting well. Much easier to make hard durable glazes at cone
> 10 as compared to cone 6 and 8.
>
> I should think cone 9 reduction would be a good place to be but again the
> available bodies seem to be for cone 10.
>
> Probably Leach's influence was what made it happen - that means from Japan
> and that means from China and Korea. It was the high fire imports from
> China that really had the Europeans agog - they could only do lower fired
> with their updrafts.
>
> How is that for some history - don't know the dates though.
>
> Regards - RR
>
>
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >At 11:40 AM 5/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> >I guess what I'm really curious about is how exactly ^10 came to occupy
> the
> >position of prominence that it does in North American studio pottery. I
> >suppose it's really just a kind of trivia quest, but sometimes I think
> that
> >if we understand where our basic assumptions come from, we might find it
> >easier to discard them when appropriate.
> >
> >I wonder if there are any clay historians on the list. I'm strictly an
> >amateur historian when it comes to the development of the studio clay
> >movement, though I suppose I've read most of the seminal works, from Poor
> >to Cardew to Wildenhain.
> >
> >Ray
>
> Ron Roy
> 93 Pegasus Trail
> Scarborough, Ontario
> Canada M1G 3N8
> Tel: 416-439-2621
> Fax: 416-438-7849
>
>
>
> Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
>
> > Please, allow Bernard Leach himself dispel any myths bouncing around
> > misbegottenly in anyone's head. Leach says the following in the book
> > Bernard Leach: A Potters Work: "In the studio pottery of this century, the
> > main influence has been, not from the classic style, but a reaction
> > against its dominating role in the industrial field. It came, as is well
> > established nowadays, from Sung--China, from the Japanese tea ceremony
> > wares and country pottery."
> >
> > Leach was aware of, was influenced by and studied Chinese and Korean
> > pottery, Japanese tea ceremony wares, English slipware of Thomas Toft,
> > Hispano-Moresque, German Bellarmines and tin glazed work from Holland,
> > Italy and England as well as other work from other cultures.
> >
> > It can also be noted that Leach worked in a range of temperatures and
> > clays... from raku, slipware, stoneware, porcelain and salt glazed pottery
> > to low temperature enamels. The reference to those years of working at
> > different temperatures can be found on page 25 of the book previously
> > mentioned. From his initial introdution to raku pottery the temperature
> > at which he worked gradually climbed to stoneware temperatures.
> >
> > This higher temperature pottery produced from 1935 onward, certainly, is
> > the work that received the most attention by the public.
> >
> > Considering the technical, cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic
> > questions concerning the role of the potter in a modern society in his
> > time, one could say that Bernard Leach's role in the establishment of
> > pottery as a viable expressive art form in this century is undeniable.
> >
> > The students who studied under him and their subsequent students have
> > produced a lasting pottery legacy that flippant, bald remarks simply
> > cannot mask.
> >
> > No one has ever said that there was no pottery history prior to Leach.
> > But he certainly has added to that history by his writing, lecturing,
> > teaching and pottery making.
> >
> > Furthermore, Leach's impact in the revival interest in Western pottery in
> > this century was instrumental, ironically, in the rise of an even more
> > mythical artist--Peter Voulkos. Like Pollock who reacted against the more
> > academic and conservative style of Thomas Hart Benton, Voulkos is a mirror
> > image of that same dynamic at work, only in clay.
> >
> > This element of the expressive energy found within fundamental dynamic
> > contrasts was understood by Leach and is outlined in his numerous
> > discussions concerning the relative merits of both Oriental and
> > Occidental cultures.
> >
> > More factual information about the ideas and philosophy of Leach can be
> > found in books like A Potters Book (published in 1940) Bernard Leach: the
> > Potters Challenge, Bernard Leach: A Potters Work, The Unknown Craftsman by
> > Soetsu Yanagi, and the catalogue called Exhibition of the Art of Bernard
> > Leach.
> >
> > Kevin A. Hluch
> > 102 E. 8th St
> > Frederick, MD 21701
> > USA
> >
> > e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
> > http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
> >
> > On Wed, 26 May 1999, John Britt wrote:
> >
> > > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > > Ron Roy,
> > >
> > > Before any more myths get started about Leach....
> > >
> > > I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
> > > with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
> > > party in 1911.
> > >
> > > There is quite a history of pottery before Leach was born. Chinese,
> > > Koreans, Japanese, Germans, French, etc. Dwight (patent on stoneware
> > > 1671), Chelsea Porcelain works (1744), Seger (1751), Cooksbury "hard
> > > paste" (1768), Stokes Pottery, StaffordshirePotteries, Wedgewood,
> > > William Murray,Doulton, Martin Brothers, etc., etc.
> > >
> > > Leach was no technician. After setting up his studio in England and
> > > finding he was unable to fire the kiln, he had to have a kiln technician
> > > brought over from Japan for two years to help him.
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
> Dys-Functional Pottery
> Dallas, Texas
> http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
>
Lee Love on sat 22 apr 06
I found this post searching for "The Potters Challenge." I bought a copy
on Ebay for under $10.00 AUS.
Actually, If anybody was paying attention, the glazes in Leach's
"A Potter's Book" were all at Seger cone 8, which is around Orton 9.
Also, most traditional single chamber wood kilns did not reach the upper
temp of cone 1, but they fired for over a week. We fire at cone 10, to
simulate the heat work of the longer firings in a shorter period of time.
Also, gas or oil reduction is not the same as the wood fired atmosphere,
which cycles through oxydation/neutral/reduction between ever stoke.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:08:02 EDT, Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>John,
>
>Doesn't the high temperature effects exemplified by Song (Chinese) and
>Koryo/Yi dynasty (Korean) have some salutory influence in this discussion?
>
>Cone 8, Cone 10, really what's the point? There were no cones until
>recent times.
>
>I mean, after all, the Asian people weren't firing at high
>temperature because they simply enjoyed stoking wood, were they? The
>characteristics found in that fiery realm, as you noted in your response
>to Ron, are quite worthwhile.
>
>If you would like to split hairs about this issue that is your
>choice but I think the issue is considerably broader than "CONES".
>
>Certainly, if YOU have found the characteristics of cone 10 ceramics
>(ie, shinos, ash glaze covered pots) to be worthwhile, then
>Leach might have been perceptive enough to have discerned the same thing.
>
>We are dealing with perceptive, creative, intelligent people (from
>various continents) here and you, among others, should appreciate this.
>
>Kevin A. Hluch
>102 E. 8th St
>Frederick, MD 21701
>USA
>
>e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
>http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
>
>On Mon, 31 May 1999, John Britt wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Kevin,
>>
>> I have no problem with anything you have written. But the question we were
>> discussing was from Ray concerning why we fire to cone 10. (See below)
>>
>> I assured him that Leach was not the reason, to which he agreed.
>>
>> If you have any "factual" information on this subject which I have missed
>> please point it out. I have searched all the Leach books I own and have
found
>> nothing to indicate that he is the reason why we fire to cone 10. I may not
>> have access to all the sources you have, but would love to learn more.
| |
|
