Ray Aldridge on tue 7 dec 99
This is exactly the sort of discussion I'd hope to stimulate with ny post
on mug handles.
Marian says that her views on ideal forms are idiosyncratic and personal,
and change from time to time, and I know what she means. But I have a
strong hunch that these forms are to some extent universal. As Cardew said
when talking about handles, pots vary widely in size, but the human hand
hardly at all.
I'm sure there's no such thing as the universally best soup bowl, or the
universally best mug. But there may be forms that are best in the cultural
context of most of us, for certain narrowly-defined purposes. I'd guess
that potters who've been making pots for many years and using their own
pots in the kitchen will gradually come to prefer certain shapes, and my
guess is that these shapes are inherently superior to a shape derived from
first principles, even if those priciples are heavily oriented toward
function, but especially if those principles are primarily concerned with
style and/or artistic content.
Talking about individual serving bowls, my favorite shapes of all time are
a little different from the bowl Marian describes below. That's possibly
because I primarily serve hot soup in them. They rise at an angle from a
small base to about half their height, and then rise almost vertically to
the rim, which is thickened and turned out slightly. They stack well, with
the lower half fitting into the upper half of the underneath bowl. The
reason I like them better for soup than the bowl Marian describes is that
the vertical sides of the bowl's upper wall contains liquids more securely
than a bowl that flares continuously to the rim, an important consideration
if you dip up the soup at the stove and carry it to the table in bowls, as
I do most of the time. Now, for salad, if you're not a salad plate
believer, a low bowl with a continuous flare is superior to the one I just
described, because it presents the salad more beautifully and accessibly.
Anyway, I think these are ideas vastly more important (and crucial to the
success of functional potters) than discussions of glazes and bodies and
firing. And yet, they're the ideas that seem to get the least attention.
It makes me wonder if a lot of functional potters in their hearts believe
that what they are making is essentially decorative. This is a weakness in
a functional potter, in my opinion. It may be that most customers use these
wares in a primarily decorative sense, but a pot that's a pleasure to use,
as well as a pleasure to see, is a much more profound accomplishment than
any purely decorative object.
Let me hasten to add that I'm not attempting to stir up another endless
round of functional vs. whatever blather. I'm just talking about pots
which are ostensibly functional.
Ray
At 03:52 PM 12/6/99 EST, Marian Morris wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Regarding ideal forms. I have ideals for the things I use, and they change
>from time to time, so maybe there are ideals for particular times, places,
>circumstances. Take bowls. I am 52, and have been through several iterations
>of the ideal bowlin my life, but met the ultimate in Japan in the common
>soup bowl which can be found in any supermarket there. It flares out around
>45 degrees (maybe) with non-curved sides from a 2 /12 inch flat floor.
>Stands maybe 4" tall. Utterly functional, the starchy stuff (rice or
>noodles) sits in the narrower bottom, and the widely flaring top leaves room
>for you to pile up accompaniments around the edges of the starchy stuff. The
>foot is a rim about 1/2" deep standing straight up, which allows you to
>stack the bowls upside down right out of the dishpan, and the foot separates
>the bowl about 1/2" from the next one, so that they dry themselves, and
>stack with only 1/2" clearance. The typical Japanese kitchen has only small
>drying space, and the storage is where you dry them, above the sink. So
>space, and ergonomically efficient (unlike us where we dry them and then
>move them to storage). I worked on this form, and took it one step further,
>by rounding the bottom just slightly to accomodate our spoon (not used in
>Japan in favor of more practical slurping of liquid contents). Now the bowl
>is used for most of my meals, including morning cereal, salad at lunch and
>rice or pasta at dinner. It is a joy to have in the hand, under the fork or
>spoon, and in the washing.
>
>Same for the little thummy place on mugs. Love it, and have recently found
>that the tall, latte kind of cups are my favorites, as I now start the day
>with two of those big things full of green tea. There is something wonderful
>about the balance of a tall slender mug in the hand, with a nice place to
>rest the thumb and use it to move the mug about. Don't know how I ever lived
>without it before.
>
>These ideal are idiosyncratic to me, but give me daily joy in the use.
>
>
>>From: Ray Aldridge
>>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
>>Subject: Mug handle death match
>>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:18:30 EST
>>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>How many Clayarters make mug handles with thumbstops? I began to wonder
>>about this after an old customer (the kind that calls you up every year and
>>asks if you've made any good pots lately) bought several mugs from me and
>>then asked me why I didn't put thumbstops on my mugs anymore. "My favorite
>>mug's got one of those doohickeys," she said. Then someone on Clayart (I'm
>>thinking Tom Wirt, maybe) said something about the undeniable superiority
>>of mug handles with stops.
>>
>>I've gone through alternating phases, mostly leaving the stop off my mugs,
>>but sometimes putting it on. One or the other is bound to be superior.
>>Visually, I like the uncluttered look of a simple pulled handle. If it's
>>well-done, I think it can't be beat, esthetically, and it functions pretty
>>well too. But I think it's also undeniably true that when you're lifting a
>>mug full of liquid, a thumbstop helps to lighten the perceived weight of
>>the mug. For folks with arthritis, this might be decisive.
>>
>>Anyway, to get to the point of this, I've set up another poll to register
>>opinion on this subject:
>>
>>http://www.goodpots.com/pollpage.html
>>
>>If you get a moment and you have an opinion, drop by, please. After the
>>poll's been running for a while, I'll report back to the list.
>>
>>It's my opinion that there's an optimum form for every function, and that
>>the closer we get to that optimum form, the more our pots will be used.
>>I'm going to explore this idea in the new millenium, and I'll try to
>>approach it in ways that make my results more than just my unsupported
>>opinion. I should add that just because I believe this, that does not
>>automatically mark me as the AntiChrist. And I'm not a disciple of the
>>Demon Bauhaus either. Ornament is good.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Ray
>>
>>
>>Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
>>http://www.goodpots.com
>
>
>Marian, breathing clean but cold air in Northern Michigan.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
David Hendley on wed 8 dec 99
I've come to the conclusion that there is no ideal
functional form. Even with something as simple as a
bowl, there are lots of good forms.
Of course, there are plenty of bad functional forms.
Most irritating of all is what I call 'pseudo-functional pottery'.
Teapots seem to be the worst, with their wildly twisting
spouts just waiting to dribble out tea and then be broken
off from a slight bump against a counter.
Once you get the bad forms out of the way, the ideal
form is a very personal matter, as Marian says.
My favorite bowl shape is different from both yours and
hers: almost a perfect hemisphere, with one continuous
curve. Intimately related to my ideal bowl shape is my
idea of the perfect spoon. This is perhaps even more personal,
as a spoon is actually inserted inside your body!
Also, my 'ideal form' changes from day to day as well as
over time. I'll take a little variety, thank you.
--
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
hendley@tyler.net
http://www.farmpots.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Aldridge
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:16 AM
Subject: Ideal functional forms
| ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
| This is exactly the sort of discussion I'd hope to stimulate with ny post
| on mug handles.
|
| Marian says that her views on ideal forms are idiosyncratic and personal,
| and change from time to time, and I know what she means. But I have a
| strong hunch that these forms are to some extent universal. As Cardew
said
| when talking about handles, pots vary widely in size, but the human hand
| hardly at all.
|
| I'm sure there's no such thing as the universally best soup bowl, or the
| universally best mug. But there may be forms that are best in the
cultural
| context of most of us, for certain narrowly-defined purposes. I'd guess
| that potters who've been making pots for many years and using their own
| pots in the kitchen will gradually come to prefer certain shapes, and my
| guess is that these shapes are inherently superior to a shape derived from
| first principles, even if those priciples are heavily oriented toward
| function, but especially if those principles are primarily concerned with
| style and/or artistic content.
|
| Talking about individual serving bowls, my favorite shapes of all time are
| a little different from the bowl Marian describes below. That's possibly
| because I primarily serve hot soup in them. They rise at an angle from a
| small base to about half their height, and then rise almost vertically to
| the rim, which is thickened and turned out slightly. They stack well,
with
| the lower half fitting into the upper half of the underneath bowl. The
| reason I like them better for soup than the bowl Marian describes is that
| the vertical sides of the bowl's upper wall contains liquids more securely
| than a bowl that flares continuously to the rim, an important
consideration
| if you dip up the soup at the stove and carry it to the table in bowls, as
| I do most of the time. Now, for salad, if you're not a salad plate
| believer, a low bowl with a continuous flare is superior to the one I just
| described, because it presents the salad more beautifully and accessibly.
|
| Anyway, I think these are ideas vastly more important (and crucial to the
| success of functional potters) than discussions of glazes and bodies and
| firing. And yet, they're the ideas that seem to get the least attention.
| It makes me wonder if a lot of functional potters in their hearts believe
| that what they are making is essentially decorative. This is a weakness
in
| a functional potter, in my opinion. It may be that most customers use
these
| wares in a primarily decorative sense, but a pot that's a pleasure to use,
| as well as a pleasure to see, is a much more profound accomplishment than
| any purely decorative object.
|
| Let me hasten to add that I'm not attempting to stir up another endless
| round of functional vs. whatever blather. I'm just talking about pots
| which are ostensibly functional.
|
| Ray
|
| At 03:52 PM 12/6/99 EST, Marian Morris wrote:
| >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
| >Regarding ideal forms. I have ideals for the things I use, and they
change
| >from time to time, so maybe there are ideals for particular times,
places,
| >circumstances. Take bowls. I am 52, and have been through several
iterations
| >of the ideal bowlin my life, but met the ultimate in Japan in the common
| >soup bowl which can be found in any supermarket there. It flares out
around
| >45 degrees (maybe) with non-curved sides from a 2 /12 inch flat floor.
| >Stands maybe 4" tall. Utterly functional, the starchy stuff (rice or
| >noodles) sits in the narrower bottom, and the widely flaring top leaves
room
| >for you to pile up accompaniments around the edges of the starchy stuff.
The
| >foot is a rim about 1/2" deep standing straight up, which allows you to
| >stack the bowls upside down right out of the dishpan, and the foot
separates
| >the bowl about 1/2" from the next one, so that they dry themselves, and
| >stack with only 1/2" clearance. The typical Japanese kitchen has only
small
| >drying space, and the storage is where you dry them, above the sink. So
| >space, and ergonomically efficient (unlike us where we dry them and then
| >move them to storage). I worked on this form, and took it one step
further,
| >by rounding the bottom just slightly to accomodate our spoon (not used in
| >Japan in favor of more practical slurping of liquid contents). Now the
bowl
| >is used for most of my meals, including morning cereal, salad at lunch
and
| >rice or pasta at dinner. It is a joy to have in the hand, under the fork
or
| >spoon, and in the washing.
| >
| >Same for the little thummy place on mugs. Love it, and have recently
found
| >that the tall, latte kind of cups are my favorites, as I now start the
day
| >with two of those big things full of green tea. There is something
wonderful
| >about the balance of a tall slender mug in the hand, with a nice place to
| >rest the thumb and use it to move the mug about. Don't know how I ever
lived
| >without it before.
| >
| >These ideal are idiosyncratic to me, but give me daily joy in the use.
| >
| >
| >>From: Ray Aldridge
| >>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
| >>To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
| >>Subject: Mug handle death match
| >>Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:18:30 EST
| >>
| >>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
| >>How many Clayarters make mug handles with thumbstops? I began to wonder
| >>about this after an old customer (the kind that calls you up every year
and
| >>asks if you've made any good pots lately) bought several mugs from me
and
| >>then asked me why I didn't put thumbstops on my mugs anymore. "My
favorite
| >>mug's got one of those doohickeys," she said. Then someone on Clayart
(I'm
| >>thinking Tom Wirt, maybe) said something about the undeniable
superiority
| >>of mug handles with stops.
| >>
| >>I've gone through alternating phases, mostly leaving the stop off my
mugs,
| >>but sometimes putting it on. One or the other is bound to be superior.
| >>Visually, I like the uncluttered look of a simple pulled handle. If
it's
| >>well-done, I think it can't be beat, esthetically, and it functions
pretty
| >>well too. But I think it's also undeniably true that when you're
lifting a
| >>mug full of liquid, a thumbstop helps to lighten the perceived weight of
| >>the mug. For folks with arthritis, this might be decisive.
| >>
| >>Anyway, to get to the point of this, I've set up another poll to
register
| >>opinion on this subject:
| >>
| >>http://www.goodpots.com/pollpage.html
| >>
| >>If you get a moment and you have an opinion, drop by, please. After the
| >>poll's been running for a while, I'll report back to the list.
| >>
| >>It's my opinion that there's an optimum form for every function, and
that
| >>the closer we get to that optimum form, the more our pots will be used.
| >>I'm going to explore this idea in the new millenium, and I'll try to
| >>approach it in ways that make my results more than just my unsupported
| >>opinion. I should add that just because I believe this, that does not
| >>automatically mark me as the AntiChrist. And I'm not a disciple of the
| >>Demon Bauhaus either. Ornament is good.
| >>
| >>Thanks,
| >>
| >>Ray
| >>
| >>
| >>Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
| >>http://www.goodpots.com
| >
| >
| >Marian, breathing clean but cold air in Northern Michigan.
| >
| >______________________________________________________
| >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
| >
|
| Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
| http://www.goodpots.com
Sheron Roberts on wed 8 dec 99
------------------
My daughter asked me to make soup bowls
for her restaurant. I sketched out several
designs for her to choose from. We both
agreed on bowls that flared from the foot
but curved back in about half way up,
some what like Ray describes, and continued
to curve towards the rim. In other words,
fat little bean pots. This form is what I call
a winter bowl, seems to keep soup warm
for a longer period of time than an open or
flared out bowl, (summer bowl).
I worked with a few and
Robin Hopper's book, Functional Pottery, to
reach a size that would hold 12 oz of liquid
after the final firing. Also we discussed
the need for lugs and decided against them.
As for mugs, I pull my handles from a carrot
of clay. I give the handle a final pull with my
thumb firmly centered in the middle of the clay.
This flattens the handle a little and leaves a flat
thumb depression at the top where attached to
the cup. Then they dry upside down. When
right side up the cup has a nice smooth handle
with a little cradle for the thumb. Personally,
I prefer tall narrow mugs for my own use. Lately
I have been getting lots of calls for wide based,
narrow mouth mugs, for traveling.
Sheron in NC
Joyce Lee on thu 9 dec 99
Elizabeth's hurricane bowl reminded me of my "what's it?" bowl. I kept
trying to make large plates on the wheel; either the form failed or the
rims fell when glaze fired. I have a whole Clayart file on plates and
platters from which I pulled and tried most suggestions. Same/same.
Finally I threw the fifteen inch plus plate/platter exactly as before,
but pulled the sides up about four inches keeping the rim as it would
have been on the platter form. Fired like a champ glazed in
copperred/copperpurple. Nice. Sold before completing landing on the sale
table, mid-flight. Now, can I do that again? And if I do, what do I
call that form? I thought it appeared strange, rather like an
upside-down flattopped hat for a very large head...
Joyce
In the Mojave enjoying all the plate posts.... will run out of checks
soon..... The Man won't sell me any more.... something about gold to
back up paper... Bonnie Olivia would understand .... but until then,
viva la Clayart and its incredible potters!
I.Lewis on thu 9 dec 99
------------------
Perhaps the solution to this dilemma is to agree that there are many =
solutions
to every problem. Some problems are solved by trial and error, others by =
design,
that is, through having a deliberate intention to achieve a purpose which is
defined by objective rather than subjective criteria then, achieving a =
solution
using design processes.
Yes, I have pondered on the need for a thumb stop on a mug. Trial and error
taught me two things. If the bead of clay was squished one way which looked
right my thumb would latch onto it but it was uncomfortable. Squished the =
other
way it was comfortable but did not prevent movement yet it looked awkward. =
Now
there is a dilemma of Form and Function.
Ivor. Inquisitive about purpose.
| |
|
