Snail Scott on sat 1 dec 01
At 09:05 AM 12/1/01 -0800, Carl wrote:
>My question is: why cone 6? What is it that caused your interest in this
>particular cone? (In my class all firing is cone 10 gas reduction) At
>some point I hope to build or buy my own kiln--I'd figured it would have to
>be cone 10 gas-fired.
Once upon a time, ^10 reduction was the norm, stemming
from the whole Leach/Hamada tradition of 'folk-style'
or 'Mingei' pottery - functional brown stoneware.
Many institutional programs (schools, etc) still use
that paradigm out of sheer inertia, and many of the
older instructors never learned any other approach.
Contemporary approaches to clay have been affected by
many factors. The widespread use of (comparatively)
inexpensive electric kilns, which can be fired with
little instruction or experience, is certainly one.
The standard design of such kilns puts ^10 at the
very upper edge of their capability, and beyond the
design specs of the cheaper models. ^6 puts much
less strain on the equipment, increasing element
life considerably even on models with nominal ^10
capacity. Oxidation firing also allows a broader
range of colors than ^10 reduction, which is more
desired now in the wake of the Funk movement as well
as the hobby-ceramics craze. ^6 oxidation allows for
many of the colors found in low-fire work, while
giving a vitrified, durable clay body.
Many students who were trained in ^10 reduction
programs find themselves out of school and woefully
unable to continue their work in their accustomed
manner. They are often unable to afford to buy (or
even build) a fuel-fired kiln capable of ^10. Some
were even untutored in the proper manner of firing
such a kiln for themselves. (I see this as a by-
product of a generation of ceramists who went straight
from grad school to institutional teaching positions
during the expansion days of the '70's, and never
had to face establishing their own studio. Current
ceramics students face many fewer such opportunities,
but are no better trained for life 'on the outside'
than their teachers were.) Anyway, for many of these
former students, an electric kiln, and ^6 firing, is
a solution to their dilemma.
Another factor is the growing concern for environmental
issues. Lower-temperature firings use less energy.
The actual amount of energy savings is probably not
huge, but it is real. For many people, the 'green'
argument, combined with lower firing costs, is enough
to justify abandoning ^10.
Also, a fuel-fired kiln is actually illegal in many
municipal areas, or may require a daunting and pricey
permit-application process. This is in addition to the
installation requirements, which are usually more
complex and expensive for gas than for an electric kiln.
Propane and wood require less infrastructure, but have
their own requirements.
One reason for the former prevalence of ^10 was that
many more materials melt at that temperature, and
formulating a glaze at ^10 can be done in many ways
using readily available local materials. Achieving a
good ^6 melt is slightly more difficult, but raw
materials are now more widely distributed, commercial
frits are available nearly everywhere, and glaze-
calculation software has made achieving a stable,
well-melted ^6 glaze much easier than it was before.
You can still choose to fire at ^6 in reduction, or ^10
in oxidation, and many people do, but the combination of
^6 and oxidation is becoming more and more widespread. I
don't know if it's as popular as ^10 reduction, but I'd
venture a guess that it's close, or maybe even more common,
by now.
A great many excellent ceramists continue to work at ^10
or even higher, and prefer the richer look of a reduction-
fired surface, but it's no longer the near-universal
standard that it once was.
-Snail
(Statement of possible bias: I do my own work at ^6, in
oxidation, for several of the reasons stated above.)
Lee Love on sun 2 dec 01
At 09:05 AM 12/1/01 -0800, Carl wrote:
>My question is: why cone 6? What is it that caused your interest in this
>particular cone? (In my class all firing is cone 10 gas reduction) At
>some point I hope to build or buy my own kiln--I'd figured it would have to
>be cone 10 gas-fired.
Hey Carl. Cone 6, Cone 10, I don't think it matters. What matters is
that you get the results you want. I have always fired both cone 04 majolica
and slipware type work and highfire stoneware and porcelain. I do them for
different reasons. More below, to Snail:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
>
> Once upon a time, ^10 reduction was the norm, stemming
> from the whole Leach/Hamada tradition of 'folk-style'
> or 'Mingei' pottery - functional brown stoneware.
You give Mingei far too much credit and power Snail. Actually, if you did a
little research instead of judge by your preconcived notions, you'd find that
Hamada thought that Leach's low fired slipware was superior to his stoneware
work. Leach said he did stoneware for economic reasons, because people were
more interested in highfired functional work than they were the slipware.
> (Statement of possible bias: I do my own work at ^6, in
> oxidation, for several of the reasons stated above.)
Yes, you are extremely biased. No need to ridicule what you don't
understand, unless you feel unsure of your own work.
Do what you have to get the results your work requires. Rather than
pointing fingers, look at your own work. The success of others is not
keeping you down.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Mert & Holly Kilpatrick on sun 2 dec 01
Snail,
What a good summary that was of the rationales for Cone 6 or Cone 10.
Yesterday my husband and I went up to the Old Church Cultural Center pottery
show in Demarest, NJ - about 30 nationally known functional potters, names
you all know. Mostly from the Northeast, or the East Coast, and some from
the Midwest. I don't *think* there were any Cone 6 oxidation potters there.
There are a few I'm not sure about, and someone can correct me if they know
of any, but I don't think so. (There were a number of earthenware potters,
I am just comparing the stoneware/porcelain range).
It will be interesting to see, over the next 20 years or so, whether or not
Cone 6 Oxidation acquires the respect, or cachet, or reverence, or whatever
the right words may be, that Cone 10 reduction has.
Holly,
in PA
Carolsan on sun 2 dec 01
Snail wrote:
> I did aim a fair degree of scorn on teachers who leave their
> students in the dark about ceramics practices other than their
> own, and send them out into the world ill-prepared to continue
> in the craft they've been taught. It's simply true that students
> who learned ^6 oxidation are in a much better position to
> reconstruct familiar studio conditions for themselves than is a
> student working in ^10 reduction. I feel that the nature of the
> fuel-firing process creates a greater obligation on the part of
> an instructor for this very reason. I honor the teachers who
> fulfill this challenge and send students out into the world
> who are able to make their own way, whatever their choices.
>
How right you are. I have attended two academic facilities, three
instructors,
undertaking to become somewhat adept at ceramics. The first facility glaze
fired at ^9 reduction and the 2nd at ^6 reduction and only bisqued in
electric kilns. Between the second and third semester, out of frustration at
my stagnant throwing ability, I attended a workshop given by a production
potter, where participants were discussing ^6 oxidation glazing
applications. I was all ears. I heard that colors maintained their
integrity, and one could further their pottery skills at home without a
large investment in a gas kiln. Since then (less than a year) I furnished a
studio at home, with used equipment, and tomorrow begins my final week of
classes. The potential to develop further became a more immediate reality
due to the information I gleaned from those workshop participants. Odd.
> I have no wish to turn this into an ad hominum argument. If I
> have been factually inaccurate, I would welcome any correction.
> Further discussion on the relative merits of various firing
> temperatures and atmospheres seems eminently appropriate to
> the purpose of Clayart. I hope you will join in, the spirit
> of information-sharing which makes this forum so valuable.
Well said.
Regards,
Carolsan
Snail Scott on sun 2 dec 01
Lee Love wrote:
>You give Mingei far too much credit and power Snail. Actually, if you did
a little research instead of judge by your >preconcived notions, you'd find
that Hamada thought that Leach's low fired slipware was superior to his
stoneware >work. Leach said he did stoneware for economic reasons, because
people were more interested in highfired functional >work than they were
the slipware.
Lee-
It's true a gave only the most cursory reasons for
the former prevalence of ^10 as a firing temperature,
mainly because I was responding to a question about
'why ^6', not 'why ^10'. In this context, and for the
sake of brevity, I didn't dwell on Leach's reasons
for his choice, but only on the influence that choice
has had on several subsequent generations of potters.
Surely the great influence of Bernard Leach's work
and writings cannot be underestimated in this role!
>>(Statement of possible bias: I do my own work at ^6, in > oxidation, for
several of the reasons stated above.)
>Yes, you are extremely biased. No need to ridicule what you don't
understand, unless you feel unsure of your own work.
>Do what you have to get the results your work requires. Rather than
pointing fingers, look at your own work. The >success of others is not
keeping you down.
I'm sorry, Lee, but in what manner did I ridicule ^10 practices?
I worked in ^10 reduction for some time, before switching to
^6 for a number of reasons. I've worked at ^10, ^6, ^1, and
^04, in reduction, oxidation, salt, wood, pit-fire and raku
environments, and made my own choices from knowledge, not
ignorance. I hope that everyone may have similar opportunities
to choose their own direction.
I did aim a fair degree of scorn on teachers who leave their
students in the dark about ceramics practices other than their
own, and send them out into the world ill-prepared to continue
in the craft they've been taught. It's simply true that students
who learned ^6 oxidation are in a much better position to
reconstruct familiar studio conditions for themselves than is a
student working in ^10 reduction. I feel that the nature of the
fuel-firing process creates a greater obligation on the part of
an instructor for this very reason. I honor the teachers who
fulfill this challenge and send students out into the world
who are able to make their own way, whatever their choices.
I have no wish to turn this into an ad hominum argument. If I
have been factually inaccurate, I would welcome any correction.
Further discussion on the relative merits of various firing
temperatures and atmospheres seems eminently appropriate to
the purpose of Clayart. I hope you will join in, in the spirit
of information-sharing which makes this forum so valuable.
-Snail
Ababi on sun 2 dec 01
^6 became a ceramic international language.
Ababi
---------- Original Message ----------
>At 09:05 AM 12/1/01 -0800, Carl wrote:
>>My question is: why cone 6? What is it that caused your interest in
>this
>>particular cone?
Lee Love on mon 3 dec 01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolsan"
> applications. I was all ears. I heard that colors maintained their
> integrity, and one could further their pottery skills at home without a
> large investment in a gas kiln.
You don't need a large investment to fire at higher temps. It can be
done cheaply in wood.
I worked in Majolica and electric fired slipware when I lived on the 4th
floor of an artists co-op, precicely in order to give me a change to fire more
and work on my throwing skills.
A low fire work I am interested in for esthetic reasons is French Jaspe.
It is earthenware fired in wood. The wood really enhances the character of
earthenware. When I set up shop here in Mashiko, I will work in Stoneware,
porcelain and also woodfired earthenware slipware.
>>Further discussion on the relative merits of various
>>firing temperatures and atmospheres seems
>>eminently appropriate to the purpose of Clayart.
>> I hope you will join in, the spirit of information-sharing
>> which makes this forum so valuable.
> Well said.
Information and experience sharing is why this forum exists. We can share
better if we check our prejudices at the door. Snail thinks Mingei is the
Boogie Man. It really isn't.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Lee Love on mon 3 dec 01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> Surely the great influence of Bernard Leach's work
> and writings cannot be underestimated in this role!
If you take a peek at A Potter's Book, you'll note that the Leach 1234 glaze
is a cone 8 glaze. That is between your cone 6 and the cone 10 in question.
Leach began his pottery career in Raku and when he started making pottery in
England, he made low temperature slipware. I don't believe he was responsible
for the promotion of firing at any particular temperature. Here in Japan, he
even inspired a community in their making of English infulenced slipware.
>
> >>(Statement of possible bias: I do my own work at ^6, in > oxidation, for
> several of the reasons stated above.)
>
> I'm sorry, Lee, but in what manner did I ridicule ^10 practices?
Your previous comments about brown lumpy pots was ridicule.
> I did aim a fair degree of scorn on teachers who leave their
> students in the dark about ceramics practices other than their
> own, and send them out into the world ill-prepared to continue
> in the craft they've been taught.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Mingei, Leach or Hamada. My attitude
is, if you don't like what a teacher teaches, don't study with them. When I
studied at the UofMN (This was in the department created by MacKenzie the
leading proponent of Mingei in America.) , the first handbuilding class was at
cone 04. In the introductory throwing class, you could use cone 10, but you
weren't restricted to it. I did many different types of firing at many
different temperatures, including luster, lowfire, raku, saggar, wood, salt and
primitive firing. And I did all this in only 3 semesters. I would have hated
to been restricted to only cone 6 oxidation.
>It's simply true that students who learned ^6 oxidation
> are in a much better position to reconstruct familiar
>studio conditions for themselves than is a
> student working in ^10 reduction.
Not if being a craftsman is part of your education. Part of the
education is being able to create the tools you require to do your work. The
small wood kiln I have in my back yard cost me nothing. It was made from cast
off bricks and shelves. It is actually easier to put together than buying an
expensive factory made electric kiln and the nice thing about it is that you can
fire any way you want: Luster, oxidation, cone 04, cone 6, cone 10 or raku.
If you have the skills, you have more flexibiility.
If you restrict yourself to methods that are easy and/or cheap, you are
not giving your creative powers the tools they are capable of using. In our
society, we seem to demand "fast & easy." That is why we put up with so much
cheap junk.
>I feel that the nature of the
> fuel-firing process creates a greater obligation on the part of
> an instructor for this very reason. I honor the teachers who
> fulfill this challenge and send students out into the world
> who are able to make their own way, whatever their choices.
All kilns use fuel. Here in Japan, much of the electrical fuel is
radioactive.
> I have no wish to turn this into an ad hominum argument. If I
> have been factually inaccurate, I would welcome any correction.
So, rather than assign all these mystic powers to Mingei, Leach and Hamada,
share with us some facts. You have no numbers or data to show that Mingei is
why people have preferred cone 10 for pottery. Mingei respects all manner of
traditional craftsmanship. There is no promotion of firing at a particular
temperature.
The actual reason why so many people are interested in stoneware and porcelain
is because some of the finest examples of functional pottery were made with
these processes. I would urge people to use the clays and firing
temperatures that give them the best results for what they want to achieve.
Don't settle for fast, cheap and easy. You are only shortchanging your
creative ability.
Lee Love in Mashiko, Japan
Ikiru@kami.com
"The Universe is, at any time, what you say it is.". -James Burke.
Snail Scott on mon 3 dec 01
At 10:48 PM 12/3/01 +0900, Lee Love wrote:
> If you take a peek at A Potter's Book, you'll note that the Leach 1234
glaze
>is a cone 8 glaze....I don't believe he was responsible
>for the promotion of firing at any particular temperature.
I never said that Leach promoted it; I'm saying that his
influence was a powerful factor in many people's choice
to make high-fire reduction work, and that this settled
out (in the US) as a convention for ^10 firing.
>My attitude
>is, if you don't like what a teacher teaches, don't study with them...
I wish this were so easy. Most students are in no
position to evaluate the merits of their program;
they have no frame of reference for doing so, and
are often unaware of any lack in their education.
They may have chosen their program for many reasons,
including cost, proximity to home, or a friend's
recommendation. Few students are proactive enough
to find out for themselves what they should be
taught; are they less deserving of a good education?
>>It's simply true that students who learned ^6 oxidation
>> are in a much better position to reconstruct familiar
>>studio conditions for themselves than is a
>> student working in ^10 reduction.
> Not if being a craftsman is part of your education. Part of the
>education is being able to create the tools you require to do your work.
But that's exactly what I've been saying! Too many
students leave school unable to continue their work,
not possessing such technical skills. For them, a kiln
that they can buy and plug in, and fire by turning
knobs on schedule, may seem the only option. I never
said this was a good thing; merely that it's a major
reason for the popularity of such kilns.
The
>small wood kiln I have in my back yard cost me nothing. It was made from
cast
>off bricks and shelves. It is actually easier to put together than
buying an
>expensive factory made electric kiln and the nice thing about it is that
you can
>fire any way you want: Luster, oxidation, cone 04, cone 6, cone 10 or raku.
You can't compare used parts with a brand-new kiln;
that's 'apples and oranges'. Everywhere I've lived,
used electric kilns are cheaper than used firebrick.
(That's not true in some industrial areas of the US,
I've heard, but it is true everywhere I've been.) And
even if you get the parts, you still need the skills
to build it.
>If you have the skills, you have more flexibiility.
That is exactly my point, again!
>So, rather than assign all these mystic powers to Mingei, Leach and Hamada,
>share with us some facts. You have no numbers or data to show that
Mingei is
>why people have preferred cone 10 for pottery. Mingei respects all
manner of
>traditional craftsmanship. There is no promotion of firing at a particular
>temperature.
Mystic Powers?
No, my information is purely anecdotal. If a person
believes that the work they do and the manner of it
stems from Leach, then I will ascribe an influence
there. Whether that work is truly in the intended
spirit of Mingei is not the point I was making. Of
course I oversimplified the relationship of Mingei
influence to current high-fire ceramics; I was trying
to set the stage for a discussion of something else,
not an analysis of Mingei itself. (If you would like
to provide such an analysis, I would welcome it. You
are clearly well-versed in the Mingei tradition, and
better suited to discuss it than I.)
-Snail
Snail Scott on mon 3 dec 01
At 10:49 PM 12/3/01 +0900, Lee wrote:
>Snail thinks Mingei is the
>Boogie Man.
Now hang on, Lee! I don't know where you got this burr
under your saddle, but in the last few days you've called
me ignorant, prejudiced, and cast aspersions on my work.
Accusing me of 'dissing' Mingei is probably the least
hostile thing you've said lately!
I fail to see how your arguments are supported in any
way by attacking my character or my work.
I said in my post last week that I wasn't prepared to get
involved in any personal arguments, but I've given up
turning a blind eye to your petty personal attacks. (I
still refuse to respond in kind, however.)
In my post of 12/01/01 I referred to Mingei only once,
relating it to 'functional brown stoneware'. (I can see
how such scathing 'ridicule' (your word) could really
piss someone off.) Still, I feel some need to clarify:
I haven't got anything against Mingei. I consider it to
be a significant and influential branch of the field in
which I work, and worthy of my attention for that. I
find much of the work admirable and well-made. I also
find much of it boring. The attendant philosophy is one
which I find interesting, but do not fully agree with.
I also have no desire to work within the Mingei/folk
tradition; my desires lie elsewhere.
I can't believe you're actually still carrying on about
my 'I've seen enough lumpy brown pots' remark from a few
months ago.
Remember, that was written in response to Tony Clennell's
remarks about 'Laika Model' in the October CM. Clearly,
he didn't like it much and said so, in a contemptuous
but amusing manner. I did like it, and responded in kind.
By that choice of words, (as I said at the time,) I was
hoping to convey my annoyance with magazines that give
more space than I'd like to work that doesn't especially
interest me. (I'll bet Tony feels the same sometimes...
don't many of us?) Obviously that work interests other
people; that's why it's in there. (Maybe Tony and I can
split a CM subscription - right down the middle!) ;)
I don't mind apple pie, but I don't especially like it,
either. I don't insist that other people give it up, or
question their judgement for liking it, but I might
still greet its presence in the restaurant dessert case
with, "Not apple pie, again?"
I do not expect any broadly-based publication like CM
to cater exclusively to my tastes alone, and I've never
suggested that they should change. In fact, I welcome
the regular exposure to work that I would never seek
out on my own. Still, I reserve the right to celebrate
the presence of articles which do appeal to me. And
to say what I think about the others. My personal tastes
are mine alone, and I've never believed that they should
be shared by everyone, nor have I criticized other
people for the tastes that they hold. It's a big world,
with room for a lot of different work.
Don't worry, Lee, I'm not trying to bring down the grand
traditions of Mingei single-handedly. Even if I were
capable of such sweeping influence, I have no desire to
do so. Disagree with my opinions if you care to, but lay
off the personal attacks, please.
I am disinterested in Mingei. That's all.
-Snail
(maker of Lumpy Brown Sculpture)
Lee Love on thu 6 dec 01
---- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> I never said that Leach promoted it; I'm saying that his
> influence was a powerful factor in many people's choice
> to make high-fire reduction work, and that this settled
> out (in the US) as a convention for ^10 firing.
His influence is only a fraction of the influence upon functional potters.
When craft pottery was reimerging in the West, people looked at the work that
Europe had always admired, (and tried to emulate with lower fired ware either
covered with slip or lower fired lightly colored clay,) and they sought to
discover or rediscover the way these high fired works were made. But also,
these high fired wares were the advanced ceramics that were produced in Europe
and America until the begining of the industrial age, when cans and glass
started replacing ceramics.
If you examine a periodical like Ceramics Monthly, you'll find that
there are many people working in stoneware and porcelin who are not influenced
by Leach, and others that are critical of him. You once said CM was
domnated by Leach and Mingei, but it really is much more diverse. If you are
interested in a periodical that does address Mingei issues, The Studio Potter is
a much better source.
> I wish this were so easy. Most students are in no
> position to evaluate the merits of their program;
> they have no frame of reference for doing so, and
> are often unaware of any lack in their education.
> They may have chosen their program for many reasons,
> including cost, proximity to home, or a friend's
> recommendation. Few students are proactive enough
> to find out for themselves what they should be
> taught; are they less deserving of a good education?
This is what we should change: a student's preperations for making
decisions about their education. Fast, cheap and easy will never help a
student acheive their highest potential. And it really is easier to put on
shoes than cover the world with shoe leather.
> But that's exactly what I've been saying! Too many
> students leave school unable to continue their work,
> not possessing such technical skills. For them, a kiln
> that they can buy and plug in, and fire by turning
> knobs on schedule, may seem the only option. I never
> said this was a good thing; merely that it's a major
> reason for the popularity of such kilns.
It really is the student's responsibility to prepare themselves.
A teacher can't spoon feed every student. What I found interesting in the
basement of the studio arts building, is that in a class of a dozen to 15
people, only a few did most of the work, especially the drudge work.. Folks
taking a clay class because they thought it would be an easy 3D elective, were
especially uninterested in the technical aspects of work in clay. They are
used to getting their colors out of a squeeze tube. Nobody put an anchor on
their asses and nobody was ever told "You can't learn how to do that." That
studio in the basement was a plum to be picked.
What I found especially helpful was friendships with advanced
students, espeically grad assistants. They typically enjoyed enthusiastic
students who were doing more than their share of work. If you find advanced
students who have a common creative interest as you, they can be a great source
of learning and information.
If you are serious and committed, you will learn what you have to learn.
Nobody will stand in your way.
And as I've mentioned here before, I think the most important factor in
finding a place to study is to find a person whose work you admire and who you
admire as a person. Then go and study with them. I don't care if they work
alone in a shack in the backwoods or teach at a University. I believe a
personal relationship and a rapport with your teacher is the single most
important aspect of learning.
Many of the technical aspects are not difficult to learn. You just
have to make an effort and not be frightened by a little dirt on your hands.
Unlike creative genius, craftskills can be pretty much learned by everybody.
> You can't compare used parts with a brand-new kiln;
Yes you can. As I said before, what is important is to use the tools and
processes you need to get the effect you want in your creative work. It
doesn't matter if it is used or new. That is a false distinction.
>Everywhere I've lived, used electric kilns are cheaper >than used firebrick.
A friend back home built an Anagama with bricks he got for free from old
boilers that were being dismantled. A friend and I bought an old MFT (with
arch) and a set of propane and natural gas burners for $400.00. We just had
to move it to his back yard.
>that's 'apples and oranges'
Speaking of Apples and Oranges, most atmospheric kilns are much larger than
electric kilns, so not taking size into consideration is not a fair comparision.
One thing folks need to realize, is that the first kiln you build
doesn't have to be an Anagama. Most folks starting out can make a small
kiln like the 60 minute design or a small MFT and have more space in it than
your average factory electric kiln. The advantage of a smaller kiln in the
begining is that you can fire and get results more quickly. And if you think
outside the box, you quickly realize that you can do everything in a small wood
or gas kiln that you can in an electric kiln, plus a whole lot more. When you
graduate to a larger kiln, you can use the smaller kiln to bisque and test in.
> Mystic Powers?
> No, my information is purely anecdotal.
I understand. It is why I had difficulty with it.
>not an analysis of Mingei itself. (If you would like
>to provide such an analysis, I would welcome it.
>You are clearly well-versed in the Mingei tradition,
>and better suited to discuss it than I.)
I am open to any questions. But I will also speak up if the "Mingei Conspiracy
" is brought up.
Lee Love in Mashiko, Japan
Ikiru@kami.com
Lee Love on thu 6 dec 01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> By that choice of words, (as I said at the time,) I was
> hoping to convey my annoyance with magazines that give
> more space than I'd like to work that doesn't especially
> interest me.
Snail,
See my previous post in reference to CM. CM is not dominated by
Mingei ideas. Actually, in recent years, it has covered it very little. It
basically covers the popular interest of clay makers and Mingei does not have
the draw it did in previous decades. I stopped subscribing because it seem
to shift focuses from work onto the people that make it. My main interest is
in the work and how it is done. I usually am not interested in the whys,
because people who work in clay are typically better represented by their work,
and not what they say about it. Of course, there are exceptions.
There are many art publications that focus more on sculpture and include
work done in clay. That might be a better place to look and not see pottery.
Without the readership and support of functional potters, CM probably
couldn't exist. But Mingei does not dominate CM. If it did, or even if it
covered it a little in each issue, I'd subscribe yesterday.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN
Carolsan on thu 6 dec 01
Lee Love said : < But I will also speak up if the "Mingei Conspiracy" is
brought up.>
Lee, why is it necessary to defend Mingei so fervently, and why do you
think there is a "Mingei Conspiracy?" Isn't it a cultural folk art? How
would it differ from defending the art/craft of quilt-making to those who
prefer embroidered duvets? Isn't Mingei a given, take it or leave it? Or,
do you believe it is demeaned and deserves more artistic elevation?
(Forgive the analogy if it is illogical.) I truly do not understand.
done cheaply in wood.>
In regards to your mention of using wood kilns vs electric, I broached my
interest of building a wood kiln during the past summer and was harshly
ridiculed for such an impudent idea. The criticism was "it takes years
before you'll have the expertise to build a wood kiln" and "the fire marshal
may have something to say about that," and "have you priced a cord of wood
lately?" So I came to the conclusion I was considered too ignorant to
accomplish such a feat until after my "seven year" apprenticeship, although
I had acquired complete building plans generously donated (postage, too)
from a knowledgeable Clayarter.
Regards,
Carolsan, the incorrigible novice
| |
|
