Lily Krakowski on mon 10 mar 03
What to call your c.5-6 pieces? As the claybody does NOT fit the term
porcelain, the manufacturer is misleading and tempting you to do the same.
I think white clay is a fine term. I would say "This is made of a white
clay body." If I said anything at all. On the other hand, if you made your
own clay body, you could call it Imogene, a name I've always liked!!At least
it would not be misleading...
American Raku is a term I have read several times to distinguish American
Raku from Japanese. I think that pretty good. The silver trade makes
distinctions like German Silver, Coin Silver, Sterling Silver,Silver Plate
and that works pretty well....so why NOT American (or US) Raku?
Your Sushi is a more complex problem. I assume that you use a vinegared
rice, and wrap or pat it around something? Or that you wrap it IN
something?
Cookery like pottery is full of overlapping areas, with ovelapping terms.
Stuffed Grape Leaves, for instance, move Northward and become cabbage rolls.
I just got a lovely recipe off the Internet for stuffed grape leaves with
lentils and bulghur and apricots and currants-- a far cry from the rice or
rice and meat stuffings I am used to. Can I call these Dolmatas? Probably
not. If they are part of a cuisine other than Greek they should be called
by the name used there; and if someone invented them--and they are very very
good--why not call them by that person's name? Works for Bechamel...
As--in my very very limited experience with Sushi--have eaten it rarely, and
never in Japan--Sushi embodies a fairly wide range of
possibilities/varieties, I expect you have a large leeway. But if you use
the IDEA and TECHNIQUE and that is where it ends--if you use escarole leaves
and tangerine slices, and ground almonds, and flavor it all with honey, or
something that far afield from the original, I think ClayBair's Escarolls
would be better than Sushi!
I am not just being a pain here. I certainly to not want to be. But in
written form, in something that is batted about in writing, that is kept in
archives, in magazines and so on, accuracy of language is needed.
It is up to us to keep the manufacturers straight on course. It is up to us
to say: Excuse me, that cannot be porcelain, that is a white earthenware.
In earlier rants on this subject I have pointed out how misleading some
advertising/labeling is on food products. The other day, again, once more,
so tedious, a nice person asked: "Do you take cream in your coffee?" I
said yes. Out of the fridge came a carton of Well-Intentioned Concoction;
soy, lecithin, dried skim milk, and Heaven Knows What Else. I could not
refuse, that would have been rude. But it certainly was not a good
experience.
And that is what this is about, for me. That the terminology be tightened.
That we reject the puffery! That if something is a plain old ordinary white
c.04 earthenware, we give it its due. There is nothing wrong with that.
Similar stuff was ok with DellaRobbia, why not with us? Why "gentrify" it
with fake labels.
I lived a long time on New York City's Lower East Side. You looked at the
map, you looked South you looked East--whoops, there it was. Then the
L.E.S became gentrified. The real estate agents decided truth does not
sell, the L.E.S., which has a glorious history, was too blue-collar, too
"foreign", and so it was renamed The East Village! So now no one can find
it on the map, and whoopdeedoo, its origins, the stuff you find about it in
literature, went poof.....
claybair writes:
> Ok....just tell me what I am to call my ^5-6 pieces made with a claybody
> that states ^5-6 porcelain.
> And while we are at it... what shall we call Raku made in the USA?
> And what should I call the sushi I make because it is not traditional sushi?
> and.... and....
> Gayle Bair ... hmmm...... Australia is looking pretty inviting these days!
> Bainbridge Island, WA
> http://claybair.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On Behalf Of iandol
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:18 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: : Re: ^04 porcelain
>
>
> Dear Janet Kaiser,
>
> Well said Young Lady. A most Patriotic address to the nation of Clayart.
>
> Those who have doubts that Janet may not be on the right track here should
> get their heads inside the book, "Contemporary Porcelain" by Peter Lane. I
> would assert that it would be nigh on impossible to make the objects he as
> chosen to use in his illustrations in anything but Hard Paste Porcelain or
> the other paste, the one made from calcined bones and Kaolin, known as Bone
> China.
>
> If people wish to go for the low temperature stuff they will eventually
> finish up with a material which has similar attributes to White Pyrex
> Kitchenware. Would anyone who calls themselves a Clayartist wish to have
> that hung around their necks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ivor Lewis.
>
> Finding myself uncomfortably in accord former Labour Prime Minister Bob Hawk
> who has pronounced the promised conflict which may be initiated by the USA
> administration as "Stupid"
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> __
> 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.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
Cindi Anderson on mon 10 mar 03
I find it interesting that some people think it is very important to not
call a Cone 6 porcelain a porcelain. But they don't even address the
potentially more important things about the porcelain such as how it was
fired. It sounds like in their minds, it would be better to use Cone 10
porcelain fired at Cone 6, at least you could honestly call it "porcelain."
But the reason most people care about / ask about porcelain is because they
have heard it is strong and good for dinner. But this is true only if fired
to temperature of course.
Personally I am glad that C.6 clay is said to be "porcelain" because I know
to stay away from it because it is harder to throw and I am still learning.
There are clays like B-Mix which are often called "porcelainous" and that
lets me know it is white but has a little more tooth.
Cindi
Lily Krakowski on tue 11 mar 03
Cindi Anderson writes:
> I find it interesting that some people think it is very important to not
> call a Cone 6 porcelain a porcelain. But they don't even address the
> potentially more important things about the porcelain such as how it was
> fired. It sounds like in their minds, it would be better to use Cone 10
> porcelain fired at Cone 6, > Cindi
>
> Cindy: As I have been one of those adament about nomenclature, let me exlain. On a wonderful Bob Newhart series there was a man called Larry who had two brothers, both called Deryl. Every time he introduced them he would say: This is my brother Deryl, and this is my OTHER brother Deryl.
That is what we are dealing with here. It is important--to some of us--
that distinctions be made and kept clear because doing otherwise confuses
novices. If you read a good clay catalog, you will see that clays are
described by fusion and shrinkage as well as color. The Sheffield Catalog--
among others says --for instance--of its 20231 body-- that is goes from
c.6-10, that it is white, that it contains Grolleg, that it throws well and
is excellent for reduction, that at c.10 and in reduction it shrinks 12% and
has a 1.74% absorption. THEY ALSO say that their W1A goes from 02 to 6, at
6 in oxidation shrinks 12.5% and absorption is 1.53% They say it is dense
and white "[n]early porcelain like, transluscent in very thin cross
sections at c.6"
This is clear. This is up front. This tell me and everyone else, Yo!
these people know their stuff... It means that if I want to have a c.6 white
clay, but want a Grolleg body, well I either accept greater porosity, or I
may decide to wedge the two together and go from there. It also mean s that
I would pick up the phone and call them and ask them. AND NO, they are not
relatives, I do not have a commercial interest.
As to "how it was fired" That is not a purchasing point issue. I do not
care if someone fires something in the bathtub, setting fire to the bathtub
gin. (Oy am I dating myself!) If the potter at the end of the cycle of
production wants to tell me how it was fired, fine. Do I care? No. Do
normal buyers? No. Who cares? Other potters who may want to achieve a
similar effect. And still and still--CLEAR PRECISE AS ACCURATE AND NARROW
DEFINITIONS AS POSSIBLE MAKE LIFE SO MUCH
EASIER....._________________________________________________________________
_____________
> 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.
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
Cindi Anderson on tue 11 mar 03
I completely disagree so we can just leave it at that. I think it is very
important! There are many potters out there who are selling wares fired at
the wrong temperature or using clay that is a poor choice for functional
ware, and it gives the industry (handmade pottery) a bad name. I would much
rather have someone sell me a white stoneware fired to vitrification even if
they call it porcelain, than sell me a cone 10 porcelain fired at cone 04 or
5 which is well below vitrification. After all it is the end result that is
important more than the name of something.
Cindi
----- Original Message ----- >
> As to "how it was fired" That is not a purchasing point issue. I do not
> care if someone fires something in the bathtub, setting fire to the
bathtub
> gin.
Liisa Reid on tue 11 mar 03
Lili,
Your description below is excellent. However, Sheffield also offers a grolleg cone 4 - 6 porcelain. It does shrink a lot, and is slightly thixotropic (seems hard, but on wedging softens up). I have been using this clay for 10 years. My only problem has been a tendency for recycle to get
small bloats if not handled carefully to avoid air bubbles, and to not overfire.
Sheffield's description: temp range c.4-6. White in oxidation, blue-white in reduction. Shrinkage at c.6ox 14.50%. Absorption at c.6ox 0.00%. This grolleg porcelain is a traditional blend of kaolin, feldspar, and flint. This produces a translucent white throwing and handbuilding body.
So, no need to give up whiteness and translucency.
Needless to say, not the easiest stuff to throw, especially tall. Yet it stands up to an enormous amount of abuse in drying (at least for me). At cone 5 to cone 5 1/2 it rings like a beautifully toned bell, and is translucent at a thickness that you would expect from porcelain. I prefer to
stop shy of cone 6 to avoid bloats and slumping. It needs no glaze to be watertight (no damp spot from water sitting in a vase even for months - I've tested it).
So what do I call what I make. I used to say midfire porcelain, and still do, if I think that will mean something to my audience.
But I usually just say porcelain, for the simplicity, and not getting into an explanation that I can see has no meaning for the listener.
I've no interest in Sheffield, other than as a happy customer.
Liisa, cone 5 - 5.5 firer, less reticent than usual. Hope I don't get my head bit off.
>
>
> Lili Krakowski responds:
> If you read a good clay catalog, you will see that clays are
> described by fusion and shrinkage as well as color. The Sheffield Catalog--
> among others says --for instance--of its 20231 body-- that is goes from
> c.6-10, that it is white, that it contains Grolleg, that it throws well and
> is excellent for reduction, that at c.10 and in reduction it shrinks 12% and
> has a 1.74% absorption. THEY ALSO say that their W1A goes from 02 to 6, at
> 6 in oxidation shrinks 12.5% and absorption is 1.53% They say it is dense
> and white "[n]early porcelain like, transluscent in very thin cross
> sections at c.6"
>
> This is clear. This is up front. This tell me and everyone else, Yo!
> these people know their stuff... It means that if I want to have a c.6 white
> clay, but want a Grolleg body, well I either accept greater porosity, or I
> may decide to wedge the two together and go from there. It also mean s that
> I would pick up the phone and call them and ask them. AND NO, they are not
> relatives, I do not have a commercial interest.
>
> As to "how it was fired" That is not a purchasing point issue. I do not
> care if someone fires something in the bathtub, setting fire to the bathtub
> gin. (Oy am I dating myself!) If the potter at the end of the cycle of
> production wants to tell me how it was fired, fine. Do I care? No. Do
> normal buyers? No. Who cares? Other potters who may want to achieve a
> similar effect. And still and still--CLEAR PRECISE AS ACCURATE AND NARROW
> DEFINITIONS AS POSSIBLE MAKE LIFE SO MUCH
> EASIER....._________________________________________________________________
> _____________
> > 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.
>
> Lili Krakowski
> P.O. Box #1
> Constableville, N.Y.
> (315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
>
> Be of good courage....
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
| |
|
