Ray Aldridge on sun 22 aug 99
At 12:11 PM 8/19/99 EDT, Evan wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Considering how supercilious and cutting Monona often is in her
>responses to those who dare express opinions different from her, I think
>she ought to take some flippant language in stride, but anyway we all
>should chill out and play nice.
>
>That being said, I tend to agree with Sue.
I take no position on the marginal political incorrectness of one woman
referring to another as a "broad;" that's none of my business. I don't
find Monona's apparent lack of social skills off-putting, because I don't
have to associate with her Nor do I possess any expertise on Fiesta ware
and its purported health risks.
However, it may be useful to point out that Monona failed to respond
substantively to Sue's figures. She instead resorted to a logical fallacy
often called "appeal to authority." In effect, she said, "Ralph Sheets
told me that I am correct, therefore you must believe that I am correct."
I find this sort of thing unconvincing. And it is a fallacy strongly
associated with irresponsible bureaucratic turf-building, which is a social
risk rather more compelling, in my view, than any health risks associated
with Fiesta ware.
Monona certainly serves a useful function for the list, and we should be
appropriately grateful for the information she offers, however annoying her
personal style. A lack of social skills does not mean a lack of
intelligence. However, it would be well to consider her probable
viewpoint, when we evaluate the information she provides. She is, for
example, unlikely to ever pronounce any activity or substance or byproduct
associated with pottery making to be substantially free of risk-- her
entire career is built on discovering and publicising risk, however minute
it may be in practical terms.
Another thing Monona is unlikely ever to do is to admit error, even though
she is presumably human and thus fallible. But she does indeed make
mistakes. An example may be found in the Clayart archives, in which she
first offered a bizarrely unscientific personal anecdote in support of her
notion that salt kiln effluents were seriously toxic, then later made
reference to unspecified studies done in the heyday of industrial salt
glazing, which she claimed supported her opinion. When it was pointed out
that recent analyses completely contradicted her view, I was unable to find
any sort of retraction or apology for offering this misinformation to the
group.
Monona will undoubtedly view this post as a vicious and unwarranted attack,
but that's not my intention at all. In fact, I've written several versions
of this post and then dumped it from the queue without sending it, because
I really hate to offend anyone-- that's not what I'm here for.
But finally I decided that my conscience would bother me if I did not say
this: it is my belief that Monona represents a class of people who would
like to decide for all of us which activities are permissible and which are
not. These professional nannies sincerely believe that they know best, and
that the world would be a much better place if only they were given the
authority to make everyone else do the right thing. (Or the safe thing or
the socially responsible thing; whatever.) Monona will no doubt deny that
this is true of her personally; she will say that she is only offering
information and that we can accept it to our benefit or ignore it to our
peril.
But I truly fear that a time will come when young potters will not be
allowed to make pots because someone like Monona has decided that the
process is too fraught with unnecessary danger. In the strictest and most
concrete sense, who really needs artist/potters? Who, after all, cannot
survive without a handmade mug?
And who among us would wish to stand before a bureaucrat as inflexibly
authoritarian and as morally righteous as Monona, and plead for permission
to work in our messy and somewhat hazardous art form? Monona would be
hip-deep in reports and studies detailing the potential dangers of the
work; what could any of us say to counter that weight of scientific
pessimism? That we simply want to make pots?
We are already well-advanced along this path, as anyone who has attempted
to set up a legal studio in a city of any size can testify. It will get
worse before it gets better... and it will *never* get better unless we, as
artists who employ potentially dangerous substances and technologies,
recognize that we have enemies. These enemies have the best of intentions,
they want the best for everyone, but they believe that they and only they
are suited to decide what, in fact, is best.
And unfortunately, most of these enemies will not appear to have Monona's
unpleasant personality and rigidity. Nor will they so openly display her
contempt for "lay persons" like us, and for the values that many of us hold
dear, however unrealistic those values may seem to others. They will
represent themselves as reasonable folk who only want to help. At first.
I want to emphasize that despite the unflattering picture I've painted
here, I feel no personal animosity toward Monona. She's never been rude to
me, an oversight which she will no doubt remedy. I won't respond.
I very much hope that I am wrong, but it's my belief that in another
generation or two there will be no more independent potters-- that all
remaining potters will be part of a state-approved system, carefully
limited to those processes least likely to adversely affect their health
and the environment. Many will see nothing wrong with this vision. I find
it abhorrent.
The independent studio potter may soon be a dinosaur in the most profoundly
terminal sense.
Ray
Sue Woods on mon 23 aug 99
HALLELUJAH and AMEN
By the way, after years and years of telling us Eggs were horrid for us
and caused cholesterol the health studies reported by the Centers for
Disease Control and Agriculture Dept. have proven that the original
concerns were unfounded.... the Government says eat eggs they are healthy
for you and are NOT the cause of high cholesterol.
Anyone interested, that thinks I was just spouting my own opinions...
here is my source ....... Daniel A. Golllnick, Ph.D. who earned his M.S. in
Experimental Nuclear Physics at Michigan State University, his
Ph. D. in Medical Radiation Physics at the University of California, L.A.
At the time of the writing of the training manual I "Quoted" the
statistics out of, he was the President of Pacific Radiation Corp. A
Technical Consulting firm he founded to provide full time nuclear training
expertise to the nuclear community. He is/was Certified in Comprehensive
Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics. Before he left to do
full time Consulting he was a Professor of Physics for 22 years at the
California State University, L.A. He taught Radiation Protection courses in
the U.S.A. as well as abroad. And, by invitation of the UN International
Atomic Energy Agency has served as an International expert in Health Physics
in Argentina. Probably has many more credits I don't know about, but you get
the idea.
These are the last of this 'old broads' words on the subject.
Truth
First, it is feared
Secondly, it is violently opposed
Lastly, it is accepted as inevitable
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Aldridge
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 1:04 AM
Subject: Authoritarianism and art (long)-- was: [Fwd: Fiesta Ware]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 12:11 PM 8/19/99 EDT, Evan wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Considering how supercilious and cutting Monona often is in her
>responses to those who dare express opinions different from her, I think
>she ought to take some flippant language in stride, but anyway we all
>should chill out and play nice.
>
>That being said, I tend to agree with Sue.
I take no position on the marginal political incorrectness of one woman
referring to another as a "broad;" that's none of my business. I don't
find Monona's apparent lack of social skills off-putting, because I don't
have to associate with her Nor do I possess any expertise on Fiesta ware
and its purported health risks.
However, it may be useful to point out that Monona failed to respond
substantively to Sue's figures. She instead resorted to a logical fallacy
often called "appeal to authority." In effect, she said, "Ralph Sheets
told me that I am correct, therefore you must believe that I am correct."
I find this sort of thing unconvincing. And it is a fallacy strongly
associated with irresponsible bureaucratic turf-building, which is a social
risk rather more compelling, in my view, than any health risks associated
with Fiesta ware.
Monona certainly serves a useful function for the list, and we should be
appropriately grateful for the information she offers, however annoying her
personal style. A lack of social skills does not mean a lack of
intelligence. However, it would be well to consider her probable
viewpoint, when we evaluate the information she provides. She is, for
example, unlikely to ever pronounce any activity or substance or byproduct
associated with pottery making to be substantially free of risk-- her
entire career is built on discovering and publicising risk, however minute
it may be in practical terms.
Another thing Monona is unlikely ever to do is to admit error, even though
she is presumably human and thus fallible. But she does indeed make
mistakes. An example may be found in the Clayart archives, in which she
first offered a bizarrely unscientific personal anecdote in support of her
notion that salt kiln effluents were seriously toxic, then later made
reference to unspecified studies done in the heyday of industrial salt
glazing, which she claimed supported her opinion. When it was pointed out
that recent analyses completely contradicted her view, I was unable to find
any sort of retraction or apology for offering this misinformation to the
group.
Monona will undoubtedly view this post as a vicious and unwarranted attack,
but that's not my intention at all. In fact, I've written several versions
of this post and then dumped it from the queue without sending it, because
I really hate to offend anyone-- that's not what I'm here for.
But finally I decided that my conscience would bother me if I did not say
this: it is my belief that Monona represents a class of people who would
like to decide for all of us which activities are permissible and which are
not. These professional nannies sincerely believe that they know best, and
that the world would be a much better place if only they were given the
authority to make everyone else do the right thing. (Or the safe thing or
the socially responsible thing; whatever.) Monona will no doubt deny that
this is true of her personally; she will say that she is only offering
information and that we can accept it to our benefit or ignore it to our
peril.
But I truly fear that a time will come when young potters will not be
allowed to make pots because someone like Monona has decided that the
process is too fraught with unnecessary danger. In the strictest and most
concrete sense, who really needs artist/potters? Who, after all, cannot
survive without a handmade mug?
And who among us would wish to stand before a bureaucrat as inflexibly
authoritarian and as morally righteous as Monona, and plead for permission
to work in our messy and somewhat hazardous art form? Monona would be
hip-deep in reports and studies detailing the potential dangers of the
work; what could any of us say to counter that weight of scientific
pessimism? That we simply want to make pots?
We are already well-advanced along this path, as anyone who has attempted
to set up a legal studio in a city of any size can testify. It will get
worse before it gets better... and it will *never* get better unless we, as
artists who employ potentially dangerous substances and technologies,
recognize that we have enemies. These enemies have the best of intentions,
they want the best for everyone, but they believe that they and only they
are suited to decide what, in fact, is best.
And unfortunately, most of these enemies will not appear to have Monona's
unpleasant personality and rigidity. Nor will they so openly display her
contempt for "lay persons" like us, and for the values that many of us hold
dear, however unrealistic those values may seem to others. They will
represent themselves as reasonable folk who only want to help. At first.
I want to emphasize that despite the unflattering picture I've painted
here, I feel no personal animosity toward Monona. She's never been rude to
me, an oversight which she will no doubt remedy. I won't respond.
I very much hope that I am wrong, but it's my belief that in another
generation or two there will be no more independent potters-- that all
remaining potters will be part of a state-approved system, carefully
limited to those processes least likely to adversely affect their health
and the environment. Many will see nothing wrong with this vision. I find
it abhorrent.
The independent studio potter may soon be a dinosaur in the most profoundly
terminal sense.
Ray
John Britt on mon 23 aug 99
Ray,
Give me a break. Get off Monona's back. Who cares if you like or
dislike her social skills or presentation? It it the content. Her job
as a safety officier it to alert you to the dangers. In that case her
position must be conservative. And she always wants to error on the
side of safety. That is what you want in a safety officier. Then with
that knowledge you make a decision.
The conspiricy theory is unfounded. Your fear of authority and big
brother is a bit over blown. People like Monona are the direct cause of
modern safety that we so easily take for granted. A brief reading of
industrial history will reveal that we are in a far better place now
than a century ago because of these standards, and people like Monona.
I would rather live with them than without out them.
Secondly you have no choice in the matter. How do you plan to get rid
of these "enemies"?? They are here to stay.
The problem is that people don't want to hear what the most prudent
course is. Because that may restrict their choices and freedom. Unless
of course they have suffered the consequences of some of their behaviors
and want to sue the manufactures. Then they love Monona.
Give her a break. She provides a very valuable service ---free.
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
http://www.silverhawk.com/ex99/britt/welcome.html
Ron Roy on mon 23 aug 99
Abhorrent or not - it has already happened to industry - and will continue
to as long as there are producers of functional work who do not take care
to produce safe and useful products.
Part of the reason that we must become aware of the technical issues -
quickly - is because they have been ignored for so long by so many.
It may be easy to blame the messenger in this case - for what ever reasons
- but the rejection of knowledge in the defense of freedom - in this case
will result in less freedom.
RR
>I very much hope that I am wrong, but it's my belief that in another
>generation or two there will be no more independent potters-- that all
>remaining potters will be part of a state-approved system, carefully
>limited to those processes least likely to adversely affect their health
>and the environment. Many will see nothing wrong with this vision. I find
>it abhorrent.
>
>The independent studio potter may soon be a dinosaur in the most
>profoundly terminal sense.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Ray Aldridge on wed 25 aug 99
At 05:30 PM 8/23/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Abhorrent or not - it has already happened to industry - and will continue
>to as long as there are producers of functional work who do not take care
>to produce safe and useful products.
>
>Part of the reason that we must become aware of the technical issues -
>quickly - is because they have been ignored for so long by so many.
I'm sure you're right that the majority of potters are not as well educated
as they should be. I can't think of any profession where this is not true.
I have to wonder, however, if the safety of handmade American pottery is
such a huge problem... then where are all the bodies buried?
>
>It may be easy to blame the messenger in this case - for what ever reasons
>- but the rejection of knowledge in the defense of freedom - in this case
>will result in less freedom.
>
Again, I agree with you that we should not reject knowledge, but neither
should we blindly accept what we are told. My point is that self-appointed
protectors of the ignorant tend to use much the same tone in describing the
dangers of antique pottery as they use in describing the dangers of a
three-pack-a-day cigarette habit. The risks are not the same, but from the
rhetoric, it's sometimes difficult to tell. An absolutist view of safety
is unreasonable. It will inevitably be used to curtail freedom without
actually yielding any great dividends in health.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not pleading for the disappearance of
regulation or the lynching of those who attempt to educate us. For
example, I would have no problem with state or Federal laws requiring
potters who use lead glazes to have their glazes tested for safety. We
know beyond any reasonable doubt that these glazes can be deadly. But on
many other issues, the evidence is far more ambiguous, and I hope that this
ambiguous evidence will not be used to destroy a tradition thousands of
years old.
Ray
Ron Roy on sun 29 aug 99
Hello again Ray - I'm posting this to the group because I think it is
important that we understand the issues before we dismiss what could be
important information.
I find myself in a rather unique position - I am regularly asked to comment
on many aspects of studio pottery in my position as consultant to two clay
manufactures and to many studio potters. I have seen it all and much of the
time it's a nightmare. Potters working in dusty conditions, using glazes
that can only be described in the loosest sense as glazes - on functional
work and working in unventilated areas while their kilns are firing.
I try not to inject my opinions except in the very worst situations - who
am I to tell others how to conduct themselves? On the other hand I realize
how difficult it is to make a decent living making functional ware even
without scaring off our customers. We are dealing with a population that is
easily turned off if things go wrong - real or imagined. I think it is wise
to choose what we do carefully and in order to access risk we need
information. If that information leads to hysteria then we should deal with
that (a better situation than to continue on in ignorance) which is what we
are doing here I suppose.
As for the bodies - it depends what you define as a body I suppose. Do you
count all those rats and mice used to test toxins as bodies. Are they that
much different from a month old fetus? How is it possible to isolate and
identify all the contributing factors that went into the mix when we find a
body.
We have not mentioned incapacitation in our discussion - I know potters
that can't pot anymore due to exposure to some of the oxides we use. Should
we count them as bodies?
All I am trying to point out is that we should be aware - and try to do
what we think is right. There are safe and relatively safe materials to use
in our glazes. The only way we can tell which are benign is to be informed
- and most of us are not - and Monona is helping us learn.
RR.
>I'm sure you're right that the majority of potters are not as well educated
>as they should be. I can't think of any profession where this is not true.
> I have to wonder, however, if the safety of handmade American pottery is
>such a huge problem... then where are all the bodies buried?
>
>>
>>It may be easy to blame the messenger in this case - for what ever reasons
>>- but the rejection of knowledge in the defense of freedom - in this case
>>will result in less freedom.
>>
>
>Again, I agree with you that we should not reject knowledge, but neither
>should we blindly accept what we are told. My point is that self-appointed
>protectors of the ignorant tend to use much the same tone in describing the
>dangers of antique pottery as they use in describing the dangers of a
>three-pack-a-day cigarette habit. The risks are not the same, but from the
>rhetoric, it's sometimes difficult to tell. An absolutist view of safety
>is unreasonable. It will inevitably be used to curtail freedom without
>actually yielding any great dividends in health.
>
>Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not pleading for the disappearance of
>regulation or the lynching of those who attempt to educate us. For
>example, I would have no problem with state or Federal laws requiring
>potters who use lead glazes to have their glazes tested for safety. We
>know beyond any reasonable doubt that these glazes can be deadly. But on
>many other issues, the evidence is far more ambiguous, and I hope that this
>ambiguous evidence will not be used to destroy a tradition thousands of
>years old.
>
>Ray
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Craig Martell on mon 30 aug 99
Ron wrote:
>I try not to inject my opinions except in the very worst situations - who
>am I to tell others how to conduct themselves? On the other hand I realize
>how difficult it is to make a decent living making functional ware even
>without scaring off our customers. We are dealing with a population that is
>easily turned off if things go wrong - real or imagined. I think it is wise
>to choose what we do carefully and in order to access risk we need
>information. If that information leads to hysteria then we should deal with
>that (a better situation than to continue on in ignorance) which is what we
>are doing here I suppose.
Hi:
I can't imagine any reason to argue against this logic. The real issue is
to learn the craft and practice claywork wisely, especially when making
work for food use. It sure doesn't hurt to use hard durable glazes on art
pieces either. It's not an absolute necessity, but why not if the
aesthetic is correct.
If anyone objects to government control and interference with their art or
craft work, the best way to avoid this is to not give them a reason to
become interested. Ron has said many times that if we don't set our own
standards in our work then it's only a matter of time before someone else
does. We have so much information and help within easy reach now that it
is not such a monumental task to raise the quality of the work if need
be. Glaze calculation is accomplished in seconds with the click of a mouse
button. I still remember using lots of paper, pencils, calculator
batteries, and time to put my glazes into the Seger formula. We have it
easier now. Let's take advantage of this. You don't have to refinance
your house or sell your car to get money to have your glazes tested for
leaching and all this info is going into a database that will lead to an
even deeper understanding of glazes and materials. No agency is forcing us
to do this and if we keep going, perhaps we never will be forced to comply
with government standards.
regards, Craig Martell in Oregon
| |
|
