Brian Molanphy on fri 23 nov 01
dave finkelnberg wrote:
Raw glazing does not work on very thin ware which is bone dry--the ware
absorbs too much moisture from the glaze and tends to crack.
tony ferguson wrote:
Bisque firing, so the experts say, came about the time of majolica.
me, i wonder about thin pots from centuries-ago east asia that i have seen.
these are usually porcelain. i haven't seen cross sections, but experts have
also said that in some cases the glaze layer is thicker than the wall of the
pots. i like to think that these were raw-glazed, both to satisfy my
romantic imagination and to encourage myself ('if they could do it, gosh
darn it, so can i.')
will anyone comment on how these thin-walled, thickly-glazed pots were made,
or suggest books on the subject? maybe similar stuff is still made on the
wheel, like the thin pots dave makes (which i haven't seen)?
thanks, brian
Cindy Strnad on sat 24 nov 01
Hi, Brian.
Maybe the thin-walled, thickly glazed ancient
Chinese pots were glazed with a thick glaze while
leather hard. I can't imagine them surviving the
process if they were glazed at bone dry, but then
I could, of course, be wrong.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
cindy@earthen-vessels-pottery.com
http://www.earthen-vessels-pottery.com
Tony Ferguson on sat 24 nov 01
> me, i wonder about thin pots from centuries-ago east asia that i have
seen.
> these are usually porcelain. i haven't seen cross sections, but experts
have
> also said that in some cases the glaze layer is thicker than the wall of
the
> pots. i like to think that these were raw-glazed, both to satisfy my
> romantic imagination and to encourage myself ('if they could do it, gosh
> darn it, so can i.')
>
will anyone comment on how these thin-walled, thickly-glazed pots were made,
> or suggest books on the subject? maybe similar stuff is still made on the
> wheel, like the thin pots dave makes (which i haven't seen)?
>
> thanks, brian
Yes, Brian, these pots were single fired according to research and glaze
interface analyasis as you have pointed out. These pots were most likely
glazed leather hard. When I was in Korea, they leather glazed the large
kimchi jars, leather hard--most raw glazers glaze this way. I learned how
to glaze bone dry from my teacher and then when I went on to graduate
school, spent my time really learning how to single fire many forms and clay
bodies. Books on the subject are:
"Single Firing" by Fran Tristram and Dennis Parks's "Oil Firing...." that I
am aware of.
Unfortunetly, there isn't much on the subject in the written word or a great
deal of interest for that matter. Most have learned how to bisque and are
fine with that. I hope to write a book on this subject one day. In fact, I
want the book to cover all temp ranges, earthenware, stoneware, and
porcelain and would include detailed descriptions of creating, glazing and
firing techniques--a book anyone could pick up with and have success with.
It would profile single fire artists from around the world. It would be
formatted in such a way where you would look at an artist's work and say
"hey, I like fergy's work--here's his clay body, make that, here's some
glazes, make that, make some work paying attention to the detail as he as
suggested, fire like his schedual...and hopefully success."
See what happens.
Tony Ferguson, Duluth MN
pclink.com.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Tommy Humphries on sun 25 nov 01
or still another possibility... the ware was glazed while wet... with dry
powdered glaze dusted onto it. It seems that the dry glaze would hasten the
drying of the pot, making it a more stable way to glaze super thin single
fired ware.
Tommy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Des & Jan Howard"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
> Cindy
> Another possibility, the pots may have been raw glazed,
> then bisque fired, then glazed again, then bisque fired, then...
> Des
>
> Cindy Strnad wrote:
>
> > Maybe the thin-walled, thickly glazed ancient
> > Chinese pots were glazed with a thick glaze while
> > leather hard. I can't imagine them surviving the
> > process if they were glazed at bone dry, but then
> > I could, of course, be wrong.
>
> --
>
> Des & Jan Howard
> Lue Pottery
> LUE NSW 2850
> Australia
> Ph/Fax 02 6373 6419
> http://www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
>
Des & Jan Howard on sun 25 nov 01
Cindy
Another possibility, the pots may have been raw glazed,
then bisque fired, then glazed again, then bisque fired, then...
Des
Cindy Strnad wrote:
> Maybe the thin-walled, thickly glazed ancient
> Chinese pots were glazed with a thick glaze while
> leather hard. I can't imagine them surviving the
> process if they were glazed at bone dry, but then
> I could, of course, be wrong.
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
LUE NSW 2850
Australia
Ph/Fax 02 6373 6419
http://www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
Steve Mills on sun 25 nov 01
In message , Cindy Strnad writes
>Hi, Brian.
>
>Maybe the thin-walled, thickly glazed ancient
>Chinese pots were glazed with a thick glaze while
>leather hard. I can't imagine them surviving the
>process if they were glazed at bone dry, but then
>I could, of course, be wrong.
I'd be very surprised if you were.
Steve
Bath
UK
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
Paul Taylor on mon 26 nov 01
Dear Brian
According to Nigel Woods the glazes were built up on some guan (kuan)
wares in layers managed by repeat low firings. Does that suggest a biscuit
as we know it . I suspect Chinese kilns took a long time to fire due to
their thermal mass so there was no need to biscuit. The shape of the pots
and all other factors allowed raw glazing .
Like every thing raw glazing is easy if you do it properly. However there
are so many qualifications that make any general argument meaning less, One
has to looked at specific pots and glazes to plan how to raw glaze them and
some shapes and glazes are self evidently not worth raw glazing. While
others it would be short sighted not to.
Ceramic history is very conservative. Like all archeology the first
hypothesis was accepted with out question but subsequent ideas have a large
burden of proof before those new theories are accepted over the others.
We have all sorts of things that are said in the pottery world that are
untrue or again come with so many qualifications that they are rendered
meaning less. Like the perennial myth that air in the clay explodes in the
kiln . Where most of my rolled rims contain air and its only the large
hollow knobs I have to put holes in.
I will add I am researching chinese glazes I find the received theory a
little suspect, since that they make little practical sense when you do the
field work.
Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
> From: Brian Molanphy
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:41:19 -0700
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
>
> dave finkelnberg wrote:
>
> Raw glazing does not work on very thin ware which is bone dry--the ware
> absorbs too much moisture from the glaze and tends to crack.
>
> tony ferguson wrote:
>
> Bisque firing, so the experts say, came about the time of majolica.
>
>
> me, i wonder about thin pots from centuries-ago east asia that i have seen.
> these are usually porcelain. i haven't seen cross sections, but experts have
> also said that in some cases the glaze layer is thicker than the wall of the
> pots. i like to think that these were raw-glazed, both to satisfy my
> romantic imagination and to encourage myself ('if they could do it, gosh
> darn it, so can i.')
>
> will anyone comment on how these thin-walled, thickly-glazed pots were made,
> or suggest books on the subject? maybe similar stuff is still made on the
> wheel, like the thin pots dave makes (which i haven't seen)?
>
> thanks, brian
Tony Ferguson on mon 26 nov 01
Paul,
Just had a look at your web site--some very nice pots--especially that
covered jar on the opening page. Enjoyed your sculpture too! That form is
difficult at the onset to build. You celadon research is very interesting
to me--the crackle!
By the way, your forms would single fire just fine. I am going to try to
contact the asian clay art folks and see what they say about this issue.
Have you given a look at Fran Tristram's "Single Firing" the pros and cons?
Tony Ferguson, Duluth MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Taylor"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
> Dear Brian
>
> According to Nigel Woods the glazes were built up on some guan (kuan)
> wares in layers managed by repeat low firings. Does that suggest a biscuit
> as we know it . I suspect Chinese kilns took a long time to fire due to
> their thermal mass so there was no need to biscuit. The shape of the pots
> and all other factors allowed raw glazing .
>
> Like every thing raw glazing is easy if you do it properly. However
there
> are so many qualifications that make any general argument meaning less,
One
> has to looked at specific pots and glazes to plan how to raw glaze them
and
> some shapes and glazes are self evidently not worth raw glazing. While
> others it would be short sighted not to.
>
> Ceramic history is very conservative. Like all archeology the first
> hypothesis was accepted with out question but subsequent ideas have a
large
> burden of proof before those new theories are accepted over the others.
>
> We have all sorts of things that are said in the pottery world that are
> untrue or again come with so many qualifications that they are rendered
> meaning less. Like the perennial myth that air in the clay explodes in the
> kiln . Where most of my rolled rims contain air and its only the large
> hollow knobs I have to put holes in.
>
> I will add I am researching chinese glazes I find the received theory a
> little suspect, since that they make little practical sense when you do
the
> field work.
>
>
> Regards from Paul Taylor
> http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
>
> Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
>
>
>
>
> > From: Brian Molanphy
> > Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> > Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:41:19 -0700
> > To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> > Subject: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
> >
> > dave finkelnberg wrote:
> >
> > Raw glazing does not work on very thin ware which is bone dry--the ware
> > absorbs too much moisture from the glaze and tends to crack.
> >
> > tony ferguson wrote:
> >
> > Bisque firing, so the experts say, came about the time of majolica.
> >
> >
> > me, i wonder about thin pots from centuries-ago east asia that i have
seen.
> > these are usually porcelain. i haven't seen cross sections, but experts
have
> > also said that in some cases the glaze layer is thicker than the wall of
the
> > pots. i like to think that these were raw-glazed, both to satisfy my
> > romantic imagination and to encourage myself ('if they could do it, gosh
> > darn it, so can i.')
> >
> > will anyone comment on how these thin-walled, thickly-glazed pots were
made,
> > or suggest books on the subject? maybe similar stuff is still made on
the
> > wheel, like the thin pots dave makes (which i haven't seen)?
> >
> > thanks, brian
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Paul Taylor on wed 28 nov 01
Dear Tony
I used to raw glazed every thing some of what you may have seen on the
webb site was raw glazed.
I think I have not been explaining my self clearly and by reading your
post I think I understand better what I was trying to say.
The reasons for not raw glazing are not necessary to do with the glaze or
the pot but usually some other consideration that does nor occur to you when
you set up the workshop . I can understand your insistence that raw glazing
is a better way of glazing. I share the frustration that it is seen as some
sort of esoteric practice . Biscuit is so much the norm that to many people
there seems to be no choice . It's as if some one has told them that biscuit
firing is the only way you can glaze pottery - an un avoidable part of the
process .
ALSO Most of the very early books on pottery for beginners take biscuit
firing for granted.
In ceramic education . The biscuit firing seems part of the system and
raw firing some sort of eccentricity . But we forget that the tradition in
educational establishments were formed before the advent of efficient
electric controllers - splitting the firing into two shorter firings was
easier to administer in an establishment where the day working hours are
rigidly set and you can not go in the building after hours.
Also having the glazing process as separate it was easier to control
the part time courses; as the ware could be left to go bone dry and all the
bad craftsmanship and sculpture bits, that would have fallen off if the pots
were raw glazed badly, could survive - if they were biscuited.
There was also no need to adjust all the glaze recipes which came from
an industrial source that insisted on pre firing. So because a minority of
pots and the majority of the colleges glazes needed to be biscuited , and
the rest would not suffer in a biscuit any way, biscuit became the norm. As
ignorance grew it became the only way to make a pot. Teachers like Vince
encourage students to experiment with raw glazing but I expect it is still
taught as an exception in most classes if at all.
Even for My own class I biscuit fire, even though all the glazes will fit
on rawpots. I biscuit for the convenience of organization and having a kiln
that is too air tight fired with only one ramp rate but the evening class
is stopping soon so I may start raw glazing because my day class is easier
to organize.
Industry biscuit fired. This has had a huge influence on our
perceptions. I think this has changed a lot. Cost cutting and better
automation has forced industry to stream line its production, but in the
days when the craft movement was forming most traditional factory making
stoneware- like the one I was apprenticed to - biscuit fired. If I remember
the powdery glaze they put on every thing they must have had to. But there
again its the chicken and the egg. If the majority of pottery raw fired the
glaze manufacturers would have supplied the pottery with one that would have
been designed to go on a raw pot. Now the suppliers catalogs are full of
glazes that do not raw glaze and also the pottery books are full of glazes
that do not raw glaze.
The fast kiln firing schedules we have also made biscuit preferable.
The cheaper controllers that many of us use only give one ramp setting - on
the way up - for raw glazing two would be better.
So as you can see that there is a huge tradition of biscuiting with
infrastructure, materials, recipes and equipment that takes biscuit for
granted. All this gives a hidden message that raw glazing is impossible.
I used to raw glaze but I gave up because if I run the oxidation above 900
c in the kiln I find it difficult to get a bright green celadon as opposed
to a gray green .
The kiln fires unevenly and the pots near the burners would over fire
in the oxidize part of the fire. I know it is possible to deal with all
that . And if I thought about it when I started I would have set the
equipment up differently, but with my equipment it is easier on the nerves
to biscuit although I would prefer not to . One little mistake and forty
cubic pots would absent mindedly go gray green. Biscuit is to make up for my
absent minded ness . I suppose if I had to I would find a 'work round'
If I had thought about it before I would have built a more efficient kiln
but I was educated in a second rate collage and a pottery where biscuit
firing was the norm . When I did start to raw glazed it was an act of
eccentricity on my behalf. I had to reinvent the techniques to do it . I
expect that is also a reason for biscuiting glazing is easier in the short
tern but it is not as nice . I dont know what it was about raw glazing it
just felt better.
I put in at least one pot per firing which is not easy to raw glaze I used
to biscuit fire them separately .
But I eventually went back to biscuit. I have help with the glazing and
since my help is not full time it is easier to biscuit the pots. I only have
to get the glaze right and off she glazes for the day . The biscuit pots are
stronger and the extra training and bother to teach her to raw glaze is
avoided - And more importantly she is my wife so there is a limit to my
powers of persuasion :) .
So I think the reasons we do not raw glaze are more cultural and short
term convenience than sensible and I am sorry to get on the wrong side of an
argument that I would support . I think potters should raw glaze first and
only biscuit if they have to . I have a feeling others also feel similarly.
-- Regards Paul Talyor.
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Even dead things change they just change more slowly.
> From: Tony Ferguson
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:29:49 -0800
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
>
> Paul,
>
> Just had a look at your web site--some very nice pots--especially that
> covered jar on the opening page. Enjoyed your sculpture too! That form is
> difficult at the onset to build. You celadon research is very interesting
> to me--the crackle!
>
> By the way, your forms would single fire just fine. I am going to try to
> contact the asian clay art folks and see what they say about this issue.
> Have you given a look at Fran Tristram's "Single Firing" the pros and cons?
>
> Tony Ferguson, Duluth MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Taylor"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
>
>
>> Dear Brian
>>
>> According to Nigel Woods the glazes were built up on some guan (kuan)
>> wares in layers managed by repeat low firings. Does that suggest a biscuit
>> as we know it . I suspect Chinese kilns took a long time to fire due to
>> their thermal mass so there was no need to biscuit. The shape of the pots
>> and all other factors allowed raw glazing .
>>
>> Like every thing raw glazing is easy if you do it properly. However
> there
>> are so many qualifications that make any general argument meaning less,
> One
>> has to looked at specific pots and glazes to plan how to raw glaze them
> and
>> some shapes and glazes are self evidently not worth raw glazing. While
>> others it would be short sighted not to.
>>
>> Ceramic history is very conservative. Like all archeology the first
>> hypothesis was accepted with out question but subsequent ideas have a
> large
>> burden of proof before those new theories are accepted over the others.
>>
>> We have all sorts of things that are said in the pottery world that are
>> untrue or again come with so many qualifications that they are rendered
>> meaning less. Like the perennial myth that air in the clay explodes in the
>> kiln . Where most of my rolled rims contain air and its only the large
>> hollow knobs I have to put holes in.
>>
>> I will add I am researching chinese glazes I find the received theory a
>> little suspect, since that they make little practical sense when you do
> the
>> field work.
>>
>>
>> Regards from Paul Taylor
>> http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
>>
>> Alchemy is the proof that economics is not a science.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Brian Molanphy
>>> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:41:19 -0700
>>> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>>> Subject: single firing (ferguson/finkelnburg)
>>>
>>> dave finkelnberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Raw glazing does not work on very thin ware which is bone dry--the ware
>>> absorbs too much moisture from the glaze and tends to crack.
>>>
>>> tony ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bisque firing, so the experts say, came about the time of majolica.
>>>
>>>
>>> me, i wonder about thin pots from centuries-ago east asia that i have
> seen.
>>> these are usually porcelain. i haven't seen cross sections, but experts
> have
>>> also said that in some cases the glaze layer is thicker than the wall of
> the
>>> pots. i like to think that these were raw-glazed, both to satisfy my
>>> romantic imagination and to encourage myself ('if they could do it, gosh
>>> darn it, so can i.')
>>>
>>> will anyone comment on how these thin-walled, thickly-glazed pots were
> made,
>>> or suggest books on the subject? maybe similar stuff is still made on
> the
>>> wheel, like the thin pots dave makes (which i haven't seen)?
>>>
>>> thanks, brian
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> __
>> 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.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
Tony Ferguson on wed 28 nov 01
I believe Raphael just gave me a virus?
Tony Ferguson, Duluth MN
Dam thing sent me an email from and I didn't send it?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
| |
|
