Rick Hamelin on fri 14 feb 03
My use of the linguistics of Porcelain was to highlight my position of the
current pet peeve-potter perspective arguement. It has nothing to do with a
specific comment,potter or even the material. It has to do with understanding.
As another potter noted here in ClayArt, not all porcelain is translucent and
white. Although no porcelain potter (or any other mud-person) here in ClayArt
has advocated clay supremecy (but close), I did along time ago have that
comment said to me. But that has no relevance here; my gesture was to reflect
on the arguement. Imagine how differently the word Porcelain is heard and
defined by those aristocrats who historically lowered their native earthen and
stoneware potters to the "new porcelain" in the 16th and 17th centuries
throughout Europe to those who separated the two phrases in porcelain (tongue
in cheek?) to what I refered to anatomically.The phrase "I only eat from
porcelain" takes on two meanings. But it is the individual who qualifies their
dedication to their art, for it is in their heart, their soul and their
intellect. You can call me a porcelain potter with an air of distinction and
sophistication or call me a "pigs groin" potter, it won't matter, I know who I
am. That is what I must instruct to those who misunderstand. It is our
collective responsibility do so. So, please, do not be make the assertion that
I am against porcelain potters. All I was doing was utilizing the linguistics
to discuss perspectives. I am sorry that my intentions were misunderstood. And
that my dear friend, is what started the whole conversation. Someone
misunderstood a young lady's love for the clay. The lady approach us as if she
were fresh, unaged porcelain, willing to be shaped. Dedicated to being
transformed. Yet, she was defined by some as the "porce l'ain" for being
immature, but not recognizing the committment. From your letter, Mr Martell, I
see that we agree. Thanks for writing me with your thoughts. They are
appreciated.
Ababi on sat 15 feb 03
Porcelain, before starting ceramics meant two things something high far away, but in
the same time the kitschy works they sell in cheep shops.
It is true when I say to "common people" this ware is made out of porcelain two thing
or one of them might happen: They start appreciate me more than before or they say:
"Is porcelain ceramics?
Actually I try to make some porcelain myself, for my needs - Kaolain - because I had
bought a lot of kaolin for the raku claybodies which I do not do anymore. By the way,
My might be yours weekly
Ababi
the ever learning potter: Ababi Sharon
Glaze addict
Kibbutz Shoval Israel
ababisha@shoval.org.il
http://members4.clubphoto.com/ababi306910/
http://www.milkywayceramics.com/cgallery/asharon.htm
---------- Original Message ----------
>My use of the linguistics of Porcelain was to highlight my position of the
>current pet peeve-potter perspective arguement. It has nothing to do with a
>specific comment,potter or even the material. It has to do with understanding.
>As another potter noted here in ClayArt, not all porcelain is translucent and
>white. Although no porcelain potter (or any other mud-person) here in ClayArt
>has advocated clay supremecy (but close), I did along time ago have that
>comment said to me. But that has no relevance here; my gesture was to reflect
>on the arguement. Imagine how differently the word Porcelain is heard and
>defined by those aristocrats who historically lowered their native earthen and
>stoneware potters to the "new porcelain" in the 16th and 17th centuries
>throughout Europe to those who separated the two phrases in porcelain (tongue
>in cheek?) to what I refered to anatomically.The phrase "I only eat from
>porcelain" takes on two meanings. But it is the individual who qualifies their
>dedication to their art, for it is in their heart, their soul and their
>intellect. You can call me a porcelain potter with an air of distinction and
>sophistication or call me a "pigs groin" potter, it won't matter, I know who I
>am. That is what I must instruct to those who misunderstand. It is our
>collective responsibility do so. So, please, do not be make the assertion that
>I am against porcelain potters. All I was doing was utilizing the linguistics
>to discuss perspectives. I am sorry that my intentions were misunderstood. And
>that my dear friend, is what started the whole conversation. Someone
>misunderstood a young lady's love for the clay. The lady approach us as if she
>were fresh, unaged porcelain, willing to be shaped. Dedicated to being
>transformed. Yet, she was defined by some as the "porce l'ain" for being
>immature, but not recognizing the committment. From your letter, Mr Martell, I
>see that we agree. Thanks for writing me with your thoughts. They are
>appreciated.
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
| |
|
