Wanda Holmes on fri 4 jan 02
John, I can only speak for myself, but perhaps my experience is relevant.
As a new potter, I've been eager for recipes because the majority of
information published gives the impression that the recipe is enough. I
have a lot of glaze books and the majority are completely silent on how a
particular glaze should be mixed, applied, and fired. They are also silent
on the kinds of uses a given glaze is adapted for and uses for which they
may be inappropriate. I might also add that my instructors (at two local
non-university art schools) reinforced this notion by their own silence on
the issue. I was happy with a recipe because I didn't know any better.
I learned through many, many disappointing glaze tests that the recipe was
almost useless without more information about the conditions underwhich it
was mixed, used and fired. And being a geek in my truest heart, I couldn't
just throw out the failures, besides they were all failures and if I threw
them out where did that leave me? I had to know why I didn't get the result
I expected, so I've dived into glaze chemistry with both feet.
We ask for recipes because a recipe seems better than a blank page to one
who does not know enough about glaze chemistry to originate and refine a
glaze. And the pictures are so pretty. It's a beautiful illusion. I
APPLAUD you and Ron for writing a book that acknowledges that the recipe is
only the beginning in a process that is influenced by many factors. May the
gods bless you with abundance!!!
Wanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of John Hesselberth
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:05 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Posting Recipes from Newly Published Books
on 1/3/02 11:02 PM, Ron Roy at ronroy@TOTAL.NET wrote:
> John and I welcome any test results posted here - on any of the glazes in
> our book - good and bad.
>
> We encourage such sharing in the book and we are interested in collecting
> and publishing such results.
>
> We also encourage everyone to try different colours and combinations - in
> fact add to the basic information in all ways - it is part of the intent
of
> the book - to build a library of stable glazes.
>
> There is no reason not to publish results and we encourage everyone to do
> just that - what we would prefer is that you not publish the recipe. Why
> not simply say where anyone can purchase them.
>
> There is much more involved in our book than just recipes - how to fire
and
> cool is an essential part of the results. I don't even think you can get
> the results John got with "normal" firings.
I fully agree with Ron here and would like to add another word or two (well,
maybe more than that).
It is an unfortunate (in my view) fact of life that there are quite a few
potters who only want the recipe. They could care less about learning about
what makes a decent, attractive glaze. Give them the recipe and they are
off to their studio to mix and fire. Those potters plus the manufacturers
who produce kilns that are terribly underinsulated, but cheap and easy to
use are, in my opinion, what has given cone 6 electric firing a
sometimes-bad name. It frankly is too easy to become a cone 6 potter. Gas
firing has an inherent advantage that you have to learn a little bit about
what you are doing before you can fire. People almost always learn to fire
a gas kiln while being mentored by someone who knows their stuff. I would
wager that most people who fire electric teach themselves by skimming the
manual, putting a small cone in the kiln sitter and turning it on to see
what happens. I know that's how I learned initially.
The fact is that electric kilns fired to cone 6 can produce glazes/pots that
are just as beautiful as cone 10 reduction firing. There are some things
you can do with reduction that you can't do in oxidation and vice versa.
But on balance the glazes can be equally durable and attractive. But that's
not what we tend to see come out of electric kilns. We too often see
glossy, boring glazes or underfired mattes that aren't durable. And, yes,
we even see that from some glaze manufacturers who ought to know better but
apparently do not.
But to get good results from an electric kiln you have to put the same
level of effort and attention into learning how to fire the kiln and
supervising the actual firing as you would for a gas kiln. You probably
have to put more effort into learning how to formulate a decent glaze. A lot
of people either don't understand this or don't want to put that effort in.
That's one of the things we are trying to begin to change with this book. We
are trying to raise the bar and by proving that superb glazes can be made in
an electric kiln, make those garbage glazes (like I showed at NCECA last
year and will again in the Clayart room this year) unacceptable.
We know how to get started and that is in the book, but we also know there
is much more to be learned. So we do want people to take what they learn
from our book and extend it, experiment with it, discuss it, continue to
help potters learn how to get the best from electric cone 6 in the same way
that potters have learned to get the best from gas. That's not to say that
all is known that can be known about gas reduction firing either. There are
still plenty of unstable, ill-fitting glazes being used at cone 10 (hmmm, is
there another book in that statement, Ron??). But the gas-firers are
farther along the learning curve because they have had to be.
Does that make sense?
Regards,
John
web sites: http://www.masteringglazes.com and http://www.frogpondpottery.com
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
"It is, perhaps, still necessary to say that the very best glazes cannot
conceal badly shaped pots..." David Green, Pottery Glazes
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
John Hesselberth on fri 4 jan 02
on 1/4/02 7:40 PM, Wanda Holmes at wmedcalf@TEXAS.NET wrote:
> I learned through many, many disappointing glaze tests that the recipe was
> almost useless without more information about the conditions underwhich it
> was mixed, used and fired. And being a geek in my truest heart, I couldn't
> just throw out the failures, besides they were all failures and if I threw
> them out where did that leave me? I had to know why I didn't get the result
> I expected, so I've dived into glaze chemistry with both feet.
Hi Wanda,
That's where nearly all of us start--with a recipe. But you and many others
pass through that stage and realize you have to learn a bit of the
technology to get the results you want. I know from your posts both on and
off Clayart that you are now well along that path--you may not realize that
yet, but I can see from the depth of your questions that you are. That's
great and I applaud you. You are struggling, but you are getting there.
You'll be answering heavy-duty glaze questions on Clayart within a year.
Keep it up!
John
web sites: http://www.masteringglazes.com and http://www.frogpondpottery.com
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com
"It is, perhaps, still necessary to say that the very best glazes cannot
conceal badly shaped pots..." David Green, Pottery Glazes
| |
|
