Janet Kaiser on sat 3 may 03
I have been thinking long and hard about this issue since it came up some
weeks ago. As one in the "porcelain purist" camp, it does not mean I am not
unresponsive to the dilemma of potters like Gayle Bair, who make pots out
of what the clay manufacturers enticingly call "low-fire porcelain" but
which people like me pooh-pooh out of hand.
I personally wish to acknowledge that there is still a creme de la creme
which IMO these low-fired clays cannot match however good the work is of
individual makers using it. As a gallerist I also see the great importance
of keeping a true "Gold Standard" in ceramics. Yes, it is about "keeping
standards" and being truthful and I cannot in all honesty bring myself to
call anything which is low-fired "porcelain". Call it a crisis of
conscience if you will, but there you go... You cannot teach this old dog
new tricks!
But I am a realist to some extent and if these clay types are being used
and made into otherwise beautiful pots, who am I to try to stop this
"development"? Let's face it, there is a watering down of so much in this
world, whatever "standards" one refers to. And as an environmentalist I
should be embracing them to the exclusion of all else! But it is still
extremely hard to do... Like accepting 9 ct gold is just as good as 24 ct.
So faced with this fait accomplis... How to get around the description?
Obviously a "Cone 4-5-6 Porcelain" label is not at all sexy and will not
excite either the ceramic fraternity or the public.
In the unlikely event anyone submits work for exhibition which really does
meet all the other criteria of porcelain in appearance, etc. (which I have
been assured by various clay manufacturers is possible at cone 4-5-6
following my little rant) I have finally come to a decision...
I have decided they will not be labelled "semi porcelain" as it is
sometimes known here in the UK, but will call it "demi porcelain". I think
this is an elegant solution, preserving the integrity of both the work and
the accomplishment of makers using "real porcelain" (however one defines
it) and yet allowing these "new fangled" clays a chance! "Semi" may be the
more honest definition, but I believe "Demi" to be the kinder option...
This naturally makes me feel extremely virtuous! I hope you all realise
what extreme powers of persuasion Clayart collectively has?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser - wondering how to cope with our holiday weekend crowds with
two dead hands!
**********************************************************************
TRUTH is too precious to tell every fool who asks for it...
****** This post was sent to you today by Janet Kaiser *******
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
**********************************************************************
Snail Scott on sat 3 may 03
At 02:28 AM 5/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
>I cannot in all honesty bring myself to
>call anything which is low-fired "porcelain".... Like accepting 9 ct gold
is just as good as 24 ct.
But as with low-carat gold alloys, low-temperature
porcelain 'alloys' have their uses, for which their
purer cousins would be quite ill-suited.
-Snail
Marta Matray Gloviczki on sat 3 may 03
janet, i understand...
i know i will have to learn a new name for the pots
i make using a clay, named: porcelain.
(if i can still call it like that in the raw state!)
demi or semi would be ok for midfire range, but
what about low fire?
i do use porcelain clay body in alternative "primitive"
firings, because of the beautiful colors.
a white earthenware or stoneware just doesnt give you
the same dramatic color effect in low-fire salt or soda.
marta
Janet Kaiser on sun 4 may 03
This particular cherry was not the point of my post, Snail. I was not
talking about suitability of the clay type used for a specific task or the
choice of material with the end use or viability of the item made thereof
in mind, but the correct description of what the finished product is made
from and its ultimate classification. It is not just a pedantic exercise
in semantics on my part, it is a legal requirement to get it right. 9ct
gold naturally remains gold, however what one cannot do, is claim it to be
24ct gold, no matter however "appropriate" or "inappropriate" the use to
which it was put. Same goes for clay IMO.
Here in the UK it is against various Trade Description Acts and Laws to
claim items for sale are made of some specified material, when they
patently are not. Quite aside from all my personal qualms, if I were taken
to court by the Trading Standards Authority, it would not help me to say
that the clay supplier called it porcelain, therefore it must be, nor would
it help if the maker claimed it was porcelain and it was proved not to
be... Expert witnesses would soon prove clay producer, maker and me wrong.
Yes, they would just end up in court beside me! We could be accused of
collusion in attempting to deceive the public. Not exactly a capital crime
if found guilty, but certainly up to =A3100,000 in fines (plus costs) and
-- in the event of proven danger or injury to customers -- imprisonment!
Yes, unlikely in practice, but possible in theory and I like to think that
it is not just this legal threat which moves me to voice my concerns yet
again.
Certainly even the hint of such "willful deception" would be enough to
destroy our good reputation forever. It would certainly be a great
disservice to the whole ceramics community if word spread... Who can trust
potters if they insist on calling low-fired clay products "porcelain"? What
about the other claims they make? Who is to know that their food safe
glazes are really safe and not much better than those imports featured in
the papers? How can we trust that the colours are not full of lead, cadmium
and other stuff which is bad? If they use such low quality materials, why
are we paying a premium for work by local makers, which we can get much
cheaper in Wallmart... On and on... Once there is a reduction of confidence
in standards, it is a very slippery slope indeed.
Which is actually why I am still very cross with the clay producers more
than anyone... If it were not for them pandering to "demand" we would not
have this problem in the first place! Some makers -- especially artists --
may not see it as a problem because they are interested in the effects and
the end appearance, but do not care how it is achieved. Fair enough. Their
products do not need a detailed tag beyond "ceramic", "ceramic, metal and
material", "ceramic and wood" etc, etc. However, pots are quite a different
kettle of fish and even "ceramic art" in a gallery full of more precisely
described ceramic work needs very careful labelling to save confusing the
public even further.
I am not the only one who works very hard promoting the concept that there
is such a thing as "high quality", "the best" and "the creme de la creme"
which raises certain work above that of others. Standard is based not only
on the work itself, but on the materials too. Shout and scream as much as
we like, there still is a difference between "9ct" and "24ct"! Desirability
increases at each increase from the base upwards, whatever material one is
working in, and cheap imitations remain just that...
Artists are free to use alloys and mixes as much as they like, but they
should NEVER try to misrepresent them in any way. Keep the Gold Standard
and don't give into the pressure of the mighty dollar!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
*** From: Snail Scott
*** E-address: snail@MINDSPRING.COM
*** Sent: 03/05/03 Time: 08:59
>At 02:28 AM 5/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
>>I cannot in all honesty bring myself to
>>call anything which is low-fired "porcelain".... Like accepting 9 ct gold
>is just as good as 24 ct.
>
>
>But as with low-carat gold alloys, low-temperature
>porcelain 'alloys' have their uses, for which their
>purer cousins would be quite ill-suited.
>
> -Snail
*** THE MAIL FROM Snail Scott ENDS HERE ***
**********************************************************************
TRUTH is too precious to tell every fool who asks for it...
****** This post was sent to you today by Janet Kaiser *******
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
**********************************************************************
Janet Kaiser on mon 5 may 03
Dear Marta
Yes, it is a dilemma, isn't it? I am so glad you can appreciate my problem!
Of course this is to some extent only an English language debate...
"Porzellan" being the generic term for all (usually manufactured) household
"crockery" or "china" in Germany, as well as the purist form of porcelain
under discussion, so the subject would not arise in this form in German.
Although it has the potential for being even more interesting! ...But we
will hopefully not go there! This is difficult enough!
Certainly clay sold as porcelain, remains so during the making process. One
can use it in any way one chooses, but in all honesty if it is not
high-fired and does not exhibit all the intrinsic qualities and attributes
of porcelain in the finished "pot", I personally do not think it should be
simply labelled "porcelain".
It suppose in your case, you could call it "primitive-fired porcelaneous
clay" or "this pot was made from porcelain clay and Raku fired" even
"soda/salt fired porcelain ware"... But it is all so messy and inelegant,
which is my problem as a gallerist, as much as yours as the maker!
Vince is among those who accepts mid range as "porcelain", but has problems
with low-fired labelling too. I actually have great difficulty with
anything under 1300 =B0C (whatever cone that is) being a porcelain, but see
that US clay producers and makers are shifting the goal posts on this whole
subject.
I suppose they could claim to be returning to the historical roots in
China, where porcelain (T'zu) was not seen as anything other than a very
fine white or very pale coloured clay body with a distinctive ring (when
struck). Our added western ideals of translucency and vitrification in
"true" porcelain have to be discarded to accommodate this "back to basics"
definition. I am not at all convinced that would be in the interest of
ceramics in general.
In an art/craft which is fighting for existence and needs some serious
upgrading if it is to keep up with other media such as glass in the eyes of
galleries, collectors and the media, I believe it is a grave disservice to
deny the Gold Standard status which porcelain already enjoys. It does not
need a "make over" and certainly it (and those who work in porcelain) do
not deserve to be downgraded by a blanket acceptance of lesser grades or
quality.
I believe that this is the point where "the artist" and "the craftsman" in
us (all?) diverges! The artist wants to create an item or form with a
particular effect no matter how it is achieved... Method is secondary and
only seen as the means to the end. The craftsman on the other hand, wants
the item to be intrinsically "pure and honest" from within, so materials
and methodology are the most important aspects and everything else becomes
secondary. Often the two coincide, but not always. This is probably the
whole crux of the problem and not one to be easily resolved.
One question I have: when using "porcelain" clay for low temperatures such
as in Raku or pit firing, isn't it compromised in some way? How sturdy is
the finished work? I have difficulty imagining it being robust and actually
have visions of a pretty friable, weak body which would not stand up to
much ware and tear. Is this just a preconception and prejudice, or is there
a some justice in this thought?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>janet, i understand...
>
>i know i will have to learn a new name for the pots
>i make using a clay, named: porcelain.
>(if i can still call it like that in the raw state!)
>demi or semi would be ok for midfire range, but
>what about low fire?
>i do use porcelain clay body in alternative "primitive"
>firings, because of the beautiful colors.
>a white earthenware or stoneware just doesnt give you
>the same dramatic color effect in low-fire salt or soda.
>
>marta
*** THE MAIL FROM Marta Matray Gloviczki ENDS HERE ***
**********************************************************************
TRUTH is too precious to tell every fool who asks for it...
****** This post was sent to you today by Janet Kaiser *******
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
**********************************************************************
iandol on tue 6 may 03
Dear Friends,
Janet Kaiser asks <low temperatures such as in Raku or pit firing, isn't it compromised in =
some way? How sturdy is the finished work?>>
If it is fired to the temperature at which a clay is hardened for Raku =
Ware, then I believe the fabric would be merely sintered and not =
vitrified, as would be a stoneware or a Porcelain body fired to =
maturity. So it will be structurally weak. Not a good support for an =
Elephant, as is depicted in some advertisements for pottery which is =
produced under industrial conditions.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis
| |
|
