iandol on sun 25 mar 01
Dear Lois Ruben Aronow,
I can empathise with your experience and like your comment pays little attention to form, design, and detail, they will get a sucky =
pot out of any type of kiln.> I have attended similar workshops where =
concentration was on the Design aspect of pottery production. One of =
these was concerned with the Designing of Glazes, which seems to be a =
rarely explored field.
So I wonder, to what extent do people create their own designs from =
first principles and what proportion sift through magazines and books =
looking for something which pleases them? Judging from the recent thread =
about illustrations in new books or magazines and their value, a lot of =
people may be incapable of inventing their own shapes, forms or recipes. =
Is anyone teaching Glaze Design?
Thank you for an enjoyable read.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia.
Lois Ruben Aronow on sun 25 mar 01
>So I wonder, to what extent do people create their own designs from =
first principles and what proportion sift through magazines and books =
looking for something which pleases them?=20
Who knows. There are, in my opinion, few potters coming up with new
and original ideas. As far as ceramic design, Eva Zeisel and Jonathan
Adler come to mind. Unfortunately, it appears many ceramic designers
get slammed in these parts for doing so-called "production pottery" as
opposed to individual wheel-thrown forms. In my mind, if someone
makes the same bowl (or whatever) on the wheel a zillion times, it's
not much different. On the other hand, I can look at - and use - Eva
Zeisel's "Town and Country" forms daily and never be bored. Good
design only gets fresher with age. =20
Good design is seriously undervalued. Speaking strictly of functional
pots, there are loads of variables. How it looks. how it stacks.
how it wears. How it feels in the hand. How it challenges the user.
How it inspires the user. It's endless!! Eva Zeisel even thought alot
about how the pots fit into the kiln. =20
>Judging from the recent thread about illustrations in new books or =
magazines and their value, a lot of people may be incapable of inventing =
their own shapes, forms or recipes.
>
I know I'm gonna catch doo-doo for this one, but I agree. I don't
find anything wrong in looking at books and magazines for inspiration.
In fact, it's essential to see the wonderful work of others! But I
don't feel there are many potters today who can really push it to the
next level. I see so much copying my head hurts. I was always told
it's OK to copy AT FIRST, as this leads you to your own forms. But I
don't feel many people ever find their own forms. It's not unusual to
see someone's work and know immediately who their influences were.
Too many knock offs for my taste. For me, there is no pride in making
someone else's pot. But there is glory in making it your own.
Craig Martell on sun 25 mar 01
Hi Folks:
I think that more ceramists than we give credit are designing work on a
constant basis. I also think that the idea that glaze is given more
attention than form is bogus. I have heard more comments from potters
about loving to throw and make forms more than I've heard about a passion
for making glazes.
Perhaps there is a widely held belief that we don't pay enough attention to
form because we don't really look closely at what's being made. Too often,
linear development is expected to proceed on a regular, continuing basis
whereas lateral expansion and embellishment of ideas is ignored or looked
upon as stagnation. I worked with a guy many years ago that hated glazing
so he salt fired. His forms were very good and he made them with zest and
thought. A lot of them were embellished over the years and the nuances
were so subtle that the "short attention span" public didn't notice. A lot
of potters didn't get it either.
As far as "designing" glazes is concerned, I don't think that you formally
design a glaze. From what I learned in school, design applies to the total
object. Glazes would be part of the design of any given piece or any
series. I would also think it more productive to approach the form vs.
glaze as form AND glaze. The term "vs." in many cases implies
conflict. The idea is to use clay and glaze in harmony. If we don't, the
work is not as successful as it could be and we need to do some thinking
and designing.
regards, Craig Martell in Oregon
iandol on mon 26 mar 01
Dear Craig Martell,
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
You say object. Glazes would be part of the design of any given piece or any
series.>
This seems to imply that the glaze is described in concrete or abstract =
terms as part of the design brief. What is your solution to this? Do you =
choose a ready made, or do you go back to first principles?=20
all the best,
Ivor. Redhill, South Australia.
<>
Paul Taylor on thu 29 mar 01
Dear Lois
I have no regret for being able and having had to throw thousands of the
same shape. Because I view repetition throwing as a concert pianist views
practicing scales or playing the same piece of music over and over . When
you make a pot on the wheel it is like a live performance frozen in time by
the fire (hows that for mixed bag of metaphor) by repeating the shape it
gives the pot a life of spontaneity.
However if the form is lacking composition no amount of repetitive
throwing will improve it.
Putting a glaze and/or decoration on a pot is a very subtle art . Today I
have taken the over fired pots from my last experimental firing - they were
shiny and did not crackle, and put a band of gold luster on the rims. The
pots are transformed from bad to good just by a bit of a dark rim. Glazes
that do not break well can look dead if not framed. I notice that lots of
the pictures I have of chinese pots have metal bands on the rim usually
accompanied by the information that the metal band is there to cover the
unglazed bit . I do not know why I decided to put the gold on the rims, but
since I have done that I noticed that a lot of pots have dark metal rims
that were not fired upside down. So if you are looking through books beware
what commentary you are accepting as fact. Ivors posts should warn us all
that there is a lot of potters knowledge being passed around that is not
accurate even so sometimes the false information is so taken for granted I
still am deceived by it.
I get lots of stuff from books but it is not the shapes that enthrall me
it's the high standard . I have to keep looking at that so I am not to be
beguiled by my contemporaries into thinking that comparison to them is an
adequate standard. I still look at the pots I looked at thirty years ago
with awe. And the best of them reveal new things to me even if the
commentary can be limiting.
So conclude what I am saying about glazes is that the context matters
what makes ordinary into something note worthy can be the slightest of
changes. I have spent years adjusting form and glaze, many times missing the
point of subtly and have difficulty teaching something I can hardly see
myself.
I do believe there is in every potter the ability to see; but the first
people I suspect of being blind to that ephemeral something are those that
are confident that they do see it.
As to the search for new forms - After abstract painting reminded us that
the classical world and its form of decorative and representational art is
not the only art form going. I feel our road forward is not discovery but
rediscovery . I feel those who think they are doing something "different"
are deluding themselves especially when we can no longer do what was done
thousands of years ago despite all the pictures in magazines - doing
something different is easy doing something well is difficult.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
> From: Lois Ruben Aronow
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:15:33 -0500
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: glaze vs. form. Who designs both?
>
>> So I wonder, to what extent do people create their own designs from first
>> principles and what proportion sift through magazines and books looking for
>> something which pleases them?
>
> Who knows. There are, in my opinion, few potters coming up with new
> and original ideas. As far as ceramic design, Eva Zeisel and Jonathan
> Adler come to mind. Unfortunately, it appears many ceramic designers
> get slammed in these parts for doing so-called "production pottery" as
> opposed to individual wheel-thrown forms. In my mind, if someone
> makes the same bowl (or whatever) on the wheel a zillion times, it's
> not much different. On the other hand, I can look at - and use - Eva
> Zeisel's "Town and Country" forms daily and never be bored. Good
> design only gets fresher with age.
>
> Good design is seriously undervalued. Speaking strictly of functional
> pots, there are loads of variables. How it looks. how it stacks.
> how it wears. How it feels in the hand. How it challenges the user.
> How it inspires the user. It's endless!! Eva Zeisel even thought alot
> about how the pots fit into the kiln.
>
>> Judging from the recent thread about illustrations in new books or magazines
>> and their value, a lot of people may be incapable of inventing their own
>> shapes, forms or recipes.
>>
> I know I'm gonna catch doo-doo for this one, but I agree. I don't
> find anything wrong in looking at books and magazines for inspiration.
> In fact, it's essential to see the wonderful work of others! But I
> don't feel there are many potters today who can really push it to the
> next level. I see so much copying my head hurts. I was always told
> it's OK to copy AT FIRST, as this leads you to your own forms. But I
> don't feel many people ever find their own forms. It's not unusual to
> see someone's work and know immediately who their influences were.
> Too many knock offs for my taste. For me, there is no pride in making
> someone else's pot. But there is glory in making it your own.
>
Craig Martell on wed 4 apr 01
Ivor remarked:
>You say >object. Glazes would be part of the design of any given piece or any
>series.>
>This seems to imply that the glaze is described in concrete or abstract
>terms as part of the design brief. What is your solution to this? Do you
>choose a ready made, or do you go back to first principles?
>all the best,
Hello Ivor:
A lot of the time I'm not sure I have solutions to
anything. However............... Sometimes, I make the glazes first and
then design the pots to take advantage of the glaze's strong
characteristics. The blue celadons have been a prime example of this. I
made the glazes first because I was really looking to produce celadon blues
and not the green ones. When I was successful, I then thought about pots
that would allow the glaze to show it's nuances with pooling and
breaking. So, I started carving pots made with a grolleg porcelain body.
When I started doing a lot of slip painting and trailing, I needed a glaze
that would abstract the designs a bit so I used some of my ash glazes. The
high silica clears and celadons left the images too literal and I didn't
like them. The ash glazes moved things around and picked up color and took
it elsewhere. Just what I wanted. You can see one of these ash glazed
jobs at www.ceramicshowcase.com if you are interested.
Sorry to be so long in responding but I've been making a lot of
pottery. Craig Martell in Oregn
iandol on fri 6 apr 01
Dear Craig Martell,
Thank you for those insights. I am certain they will be found useful by =
many people. Reading your notes, I judge that you are working from first =
principles, since you define the qualities you want in both glaze and =
object. Or having invented your own solution to a particular problem, eg =
the Blue Celadon, considered the best way to exploit the qualities it =
provided.
Yes, I will have a look at your site in anticipation of seeing original =
works.
Best regards,
Ivor
| |
|
