Hank Murrow on sun 16 feb 03
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 09:59 AM, Craig Martell wrote:
> Perhaps the idea of "true porcelain" is languishing in the archaic
> bin, and
> maybe that's a good place for a lot of definitions we struggle with.
> If
> there is indeed a definition for the real stuff, who has it, and by
> what
> authority? Maybe it's best if we just deal with the characteristics of
> claybody types and firing ranges and conditions and leave it at
> that. Endless debates eat up time that could be spent working on your
> undefined ware type or enjoying a pint of Tree Frog beer.
>
Craig is on to something here. I have been talking about the Southern
Chinese ones, because many labor under the notion that they are based
on kaolin/feldspar combinations, when they are really based upon
volcanic ashes. Useful to know if you wish to go find some. Bottger
might have been better off to poke around extinct volcanos. But then he
found something else, the way potters have been doing forever.
Cheers, Hank
| |
|
