vince pitelka on sun 16 sep 01
> I've come to the same conclusion, that low fire is essentially for
> decorative pieces only.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the degree of utility of low-fire
wares in comparison to higher fired wares, but it seems a little strange to
say that low fired wares are nonfunctional? After all, most of the wares
used by humans through history until fairly recently have been low fired.
There is no reason that low fired wares cannot be perfectly serviceable, as
long as the glaze is chemically safe. There is absolutely no record of any
health problems from using low fired wares as long as the glaze was safe.
The crazing itself does not seem to be a health problem at all, although of
course it does decrease the strength of the glaze coating.
There are plenty of potters all over the world making beautiful and
serviceable utilitarian low fire wares. Let's give them some credit.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Rick Monteverde on sun 16 sep 01
Vince -
>There are plenty of potters all over the world making beautiful and
>serviceable utilitarian low fire wares. Let's give them some credit.
Of course it depends on what you call servicable/utilitarian.
Crazing, cracking, and absorbtion through unglazed areas, not to
mention a rather drastic fragility make these items unusable *In My
Opinion*. I can't stand having a soapy taste from dishwater seeping
into my Kona coffee! And bowls used for cereal or whatever quickly
get all chipped on the rim, far faster than stoneware. We can give
the artisans all the credit we want to for their art, but I think
this is simply a material durability question.
- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI
CINDI ANDERSON on mon 17 sep 01
I'm trying to understand what you're saying Vince, but it seems like you're walking
around saying it. It sounds like you are trying not to disparage low fire work,
and I understand that. I'm not trying to disparage any type of work either. But I
am having trouble reconciling the fact that low fire ware has been used for
centuries, with the fact that it doesn't seem to be durable. I am not talking of
health issues, and I don't want to get into the semantics of what is "functional".
I am talking about selling something like a dinnerware set which cannot stand up to
the modern world of dishwashers and microwaves.
I guess I'm trying to get a handle on the actual degree of utility, as you put it.
Is it high enough to be feasible for dinner ware? Or are the people buying it
simply supposed to "know" that it is a "decorative" piece that isn't expected to
last if used very much?
I guess the truth is that based on my experience and knowledge, I look at these low
fire dinnerware sets and I think they are a sham. I am looking for someone to tell
me if I am wrong. So please give me some details on the degree of utility if you
have them. Your choice of the word "serviceable" does not inspire confidence.
That's what the house inspector told me when my roof was on its last legs but had
no leaks.
Thanks
Cindi
----------------------------------------------------
vince pitelka wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with discussing the degree of utility of low-fire
> wares in comparison to higher fired wares, but it seems a little strange to
> say that low fired wares are nonfunctional? After all, most of the wares
> used by humans through history until fairly recently have been low fired.
> There is no reason that low fired wares cannot be perfectly serviceable, as
> long as the glaze is chemically safe. There is absolutely no record of any
> health problems from using low fired wares as long as the glaze was safe.
> The crazing itself does not seem to be a health problem at all, although of
> course it does decrease the strength of the glaze coating.
>
> There are plenty of potters all over the world making beautiful and
> serviceable utilitarian low fire wares. Let's give them some credit.
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
Jennifer F Boyer on mon 17 sep 01
ONE aspect of low fire pieces used by our ancestors: I inherited
a set of very old baking dishes that my grandmother used:
French, low fire, glazed only on the inside: I couldn't use
them. Frankly they SMELL!! The unglazed part has been absorbing
stuff all along. I think it is mainly fats that are the problem.
Butter probably, floating in dishwater, absorbing into the
porous clay and then turning rancid, deep inside the pot. So the
only way I can see low fire pots being useful is if they are
glazed all over. This also solves the wet-pot-in-the microwave problem....
Jennifer
CINDI ANDERSON wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand what you're saying Vince, but it seems like you're walking
> around saying it. It sounds like you are trying not to disparage low fire work,
> and I understand that. I'm not trying to disparage any type of work either. But I
> am having trouble reconciling the fact that low fire ware has been used for
> centuries, with the fact that it doesn't seem to be durable. I am not talking of
> health issues, and I don't want to get into the semantics of what is "functional".
> I am talking about selling something like a dinnerware set which cannot stand up to
> the modern world of dishwashers and microwaves.
>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jennifer Boyer mailto:jboyer@adelphia.net
Thistle Hill Pottery
95 Powder Horn Glen Rd
Montpelier, VT 05602 USA
802-223-8926
http://www.thistlehillpottery.com/
Never pass on an email warning without checking out this site
for web hoaxes and junk:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/cs/nethoaxes/index.htm
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Cindy Strnad on mon 17 sep 01
Hi, Cindi.
As you have said, it's a matter of level. Vince is right, from his own frame
of reference. Low-fire ware has been used for functional purposes for many,
many years. It doesn't last forever, or even for a significant fraction of
forever, but he's right--it is quite useable. Probably it will last a good
deal longer than plastic plates that get scratched and yucky so quickly.
You may have to write a treatise to go with each pot sold, explaining the
"level" of utility and durability of your piece, given that we are very hard
on our tableware these days, and that we've grown to expect ceramics to last
as long as the high-fire stuff turned out by the Chinese of old. Low fire
ware is certainly useable. It just won't take as much or last as long under
rough circumstances.
Best wishes,
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
cindy@earthen-vessels-pottery.com
http://www.earthen-vessels-pottery.com
vince pitelka on mon 17 sep 01
> I guess I'm trying to get a handle on the actual degree of utility, as you
put it.
> Is it high enough to be feasible for dinner ware? Or are the people
buying it
> simply supposed to "know" that it is a "decorative" piece that isn't
expected to
> last if used very much?
Cindi -
I probably answered most of your questions on several other Clayart posts
today, so I won't repeat all of that. I might add this: throughout our
lives we handle all sorts of crockery. Even people who know nothing about
making and firing pottery know the difference in feel between a vitreous
high-fired piece and a porous low-fired piece, and they know that the latter
is far more fragile. If it is a piece they like, if it is beautiful as well
as functional, they will tend to handle it carefully. There is no reason to
assume that high-fired wares will necessarily last any longer than low-fired
wares, as long as we properly prepare our customers for their use. I do not
see any problem in that.
> I guess the truth is that based on my experience and knowledge, I look at
these low
> fire dinnerware sets and I think they are a sham. I am looking for
someone to tell
> me if I am wrong.
I do believe it is a mistake to think that they are a sham. No potter
making lowfire dinnerware is trying to pass an inferior product off on the
consumer, or to pull the wool over the customer's eyes. Most people that
make lowfired dinnerware do so because of the special qualities available
only at lowfire temperatures, and they are willing to accept that the wares
will be a little more porous and fragile.
> So please give me some details on the degree of utility if you have them.
This is a strange request. They are fully utilitarian as long as they are
handled with proper care, just like highfired wares. It is as simple as
that.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Steve Mills on tue 18 sep 01
Dear Jennifer,
Low fired cooking wares are only really viable if they are in continuous
use. If you want to re-use your grandmother's French pots I suggest you
give them a long slow firing to about 700 degrees centigrade; this
should burn out any unpleasant residues and make them reusable for you.
We have several such pots including a large Spanish dish all of which
get regular use, and they don't smell, honest!
Steve
Bath
UK
In message , Jennifer F Boyer writes
>ONE aspect of low fire pieces used by our ancestors: I inherited
>a set of very old baking dishes that my grandmother used:
>French, low fire, glazed only on the inside: I couldn't use
>them. Frankly they SMELL!! The unglazed part has been absorbing
>stuff all along. I think it is mainly fats that are the problem.
>Butter probably, floating in dishwater, absorbing into the
>porous clay and then turning rancid, deep inside the pot. So the
>only way I can see low fire pots being useful is if they are
>glazed all over. This also solves the wet-pot-in-the microwave problem...=
>=2E
>Jennifer
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
Richard Jeffery on tue 18 sep 01
I always thought this helped with the flavour. wonder if there are any
mechanical properties these pots benefit from when they are impregnated with
grease? bit like iron pans that are non-stick when they have a layer of oil
fired on
Richard Jeffery
Web Design and Photography www.theeleventhweb.co.uk
Bournemouth UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Steve Mills
Sent: 18 September 2001 12:15
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Low fire "functional" ceramics: oxy moron? Wrong.
Dear Jennifer,
Low fired cooking wares are only really viable if they are in continuous
use. If you want to re-use your grandmother's French pots I suggest you
give them a long slow firing to about 700 degrees centigrade; this
should burn out any unpleasant residues and make them reusable for you.
We have several such pots including a large Spanish dish all of which
get regular use, and they don't smell, honest!
Steve
Bath
UK
In message , Jennifer F Boyer writes
>ONE aspect of low fire pieces used by our ancestors: I inherited
>a set of very old baking dishes that my grandmother used:
>French, low fire, glazed only on the inside: I couldn't use
>them. Frankly they SMELL!! The unglazed part has been absorbing
>stuff all along. I think it is mainly fats that are the problem.
>Butter probably, floating in dishwater, absorbing into the
>porous clay and then turning rancid, deep inside the pot. So the
>only way I can see low fire pots being useful is if they are
>glazed all over. This also solves the wet-pot-in-the microwave problem...=
>=2E
>Jennifer
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
