SBRANFPOTS@AOL.COM on wed 14 jun 00
I've been away from CLAYART for a few weeks and came back to a discussion
about the differences between raku here and raku there. Here is my two cents:
Both Vince and Mel and right on when they say that raku is not static.
Indeed, even in Japan, raku ware as produced by the raku family has taken on
a very contemporary aesthetic. Raku was introduced to the west by Leach
through his account of attending a raku party. However it was introduced to
America by Warren Gilbertson and subsequently experimented with on the west
coast by a few potters most noteably Hal Riegger and Paul Soldner. Hal was
doing "western style raku" as early as 1947 or so, before Soldner. Just who
was the first to come up with the idea of post firing reduction is a matter
of debate but it appears that it was Riegger. How important is it that we
know who was the first? Probably not much as it is likely that both potters
were working with the techniques independenly of each other and "discovered"
post firing reduction equally independently.
Traditional raku was of two types. Red raku was low fired with a thick lead
based glaze. Black raku was high fired with a feldspathic glaze. Both wares
were fired quickly in a small charcoal kiln, removed with tongs and cooled.
There was, and is no post firing treatment.
The important thing for us to remember is that raku has it's origins in the
Japanese culture, the tea ceremony, and the practice of Zen. It's basic
technical method has been adopted by contemporary potters and adapted to
their aesthetic sensibilities. New twists, variations, and ideas have
expanded upon this traditional technique and have given it new relevance to
modern potters. Calling it raku does not minimize its origins or relevance to
traditional Japanese practice or its wares and no one needs to feel guilty
about calling what we do raku.
Carry on!
Steven Branfman
| |
|
