Vince Pitelka on wed 10 sep 03
> Also, you must remember that molds did not start with casting, but
> just extended that technique. It is possible that molds are actually
> the oldest methid of forming pottery. I recall seeing a photograph of
> a bowl from the neolithic period that was formed by pressing clay
> into a wicker basket which served as a mold.
> I see molds as just a different way of forming pottery. In both
> throwing and molds the final results depend on the skill and artistic
> imagination (if any) of the potter, and on the individual attention
> each piece gets.
Malcolm -
I appreciate all of your comments. The above points have been discussed in
this thread, and of course molds are perfectly appropriate tools for potters
or sculptors to use for many different reasons. So far, that has not been
the issue in this discussion.
I'd be interested in the source of the concept of a woven basket being used
as a mold for a neolithic pot. It makes sense, but I have never heard of
that, and I have studied the emergence of clay vessels all over the world.
It is well established that baskets preceded pottery production in almost
all cultures, because woven baskets traveled well, and thus were used by
late paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers. Clay vessels did not travel
well, and those paleolithic peoples who did discover the phenomena of fired
clay seemed to use it only for figurines and amulets.
Since baskets were around before clay vessels, it is natural that emergent
neolithic potters would turn to woven vessels for inspiration and surface
decoration. In some cases, as in Chinese and Egyptian neoleolithic vessels,
the basket imagery was often just painted on the surface, whereas in others
the woven materials were pressed into or rolled across the surface, creating
the well known "corded" surface. It would be easy to mistake that surface
as having been "press-molded" into a basket, and it would be just like an
art historian to make that assumption. God bless art historians, but they
do have the bad habit of making inaccurate assumptions about process and
technique without ever asking those in the know, and then perpetuating those
false assumptions in generations of scholarly papers.
Yes, of course I realize that molds have played an important part in the
making of great pots and sculpture. Most of the body parts and armor for
the Qin Terracotta Army were press-molded, but every single head is a
portrait of an individual. Peruvian stirrup vessels were press-molded and
then assembled, but the surface decoration seems to be unique on each one.
I suppose that using molds was a matter of expedience, since pots were
buried with almost every single deceased person. But once again, all of
this has little to do with the discussion of whether or not slipcast or
rampressed wares belong in venues that sell "handmade" fine craft.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Malcolm Schosha on thu 11 sep 03
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> > Also, you must remember that molds did not start with casting, but
> > just extended that technique. It is possible that molds are
actually
> > the oldest methid of forming pottery. I recall seeing a
photograph of
> > a bowl from the neolithic period that was formed by pressing clay
> > into a wicker basket which served as a mold.
> > I see molds as just a different way of forming pottery. In both
> > throwing and molds the final results depend on the skill and
artistic
> > imagination (if any) of the potter, and on the individual
attention
> > each piece gets.
>
> Malcolm -
> I appreciate all of your comments. The above points have been
discussed in
> this thread, and of course molds are perfectly appropriate tools
for potters
> or sculptors to use for many different reasons. So far, that has
not been
> the issue in this discussion.
............................................
Vince,
Perhaps I have misunderstood your point; but it is my understanding
that you find a special somthing in the process of throwing, that is
lacking in slip casting. It is my view that if either a thrown or
slipcast piece of pottery amounts to something special depends on the
quality of the potter's concept and the quality of of the technique
used. If we are in agreement, that's great!
Malcolm
Vince Pitelka on thu 11 sep 03
Malcolm wrote:
> Perhaps I have misunderstood your point; but it is my understanding
> that you find a special somthing in the process of throwing, that is
> lacking in slip casting. It is my view that if either a thrown or
> slipcast piece of pottery amounts to something special depends on the
> quality of the potter's concept and the quality of of the technique
> used. If we are in agreement, that's great!
Malcolm -
I'm about to give up on this discussion, because I don't know how much
clearer I can make my convictions. Something special? Yes, wheel-thrown or
handbuilt wares are handmade, slipcast wares are not (unless the final
project is handbuilt from slipcast components). That seems pretty
straightforward, doesn't it? I really am not trying to get anyone to agree
with me, I am just supporting my own convictions. As you can see, I am
persistent, perhaps to a fault.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Malcolm Schosha on fri 12 sep 03
Vince,
If this has reached the point where you think that I am trying to
catch you in some sort of mistake, or beat you down by continuing on
too long; then it would be best to end this discussion.
In fact I appreciate your well formed ideas, and never had any
intention to 'win' an argument. I just find the subject interesting,
and helpful in clarifying ideas, nothing more.
Malcolm
..................................................
> Malcolm -
> I'm about to give up on this discussion, because I don't know how
much
> clearer I can make my convictions. Something special? Yes, wheel-
thrown or
> handbuilt wares are handmade, slipcast wares are not (unless the
final
> project is handbuilt from slipcast components). That seems pretty
> straightforward, doesn't it? I really am not trying to get anyone
to agree
> with me, I am just supporting my own convictions. As you can see,
I am
> persistent, perhaps to a fault.
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Technological University
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
> Home - vpitelka@d...
> 615/597-5376
> Office - wpitelka@t...
> 615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
John Rodgers on fri 12 sep 03
Vince,
Please apply your point of view to the following:
Pot #1 - Thrown: 1) Using my hands directly on the clay, I throw a pot
on the wheel, 2) I carve the surface of the pot with tools, 5) I
bisque fire, 6) I glaze the pot by dipping by hand, and finally 7)
finish by doing a glaze firing.
Pot #2: Sculpted: 1) Using wheel, hands, and tools, I sculpt the pot
in plaster 2) I mold the pot. (in this case I made three mold sections)
3) I slip cast the pot, 4) I then carve the surface of the slip cast pot
with tools,5) I bisque fire, 6) I glaze the pot by dipping, and finally
7) finish by doing a glaze firing.
Sculpture: 1) I sculpt a figure in wax (does not shrink and crack like
clay) by hand and tool, 2) I cut the figure into moldable pieces. 3) I
mold each piece.(in this case 52 mold sections) 4) I cast each mold, 5)
I assemble the cast pieces - 13 in all - into one figure
How would you categorize each of these pieces for purposes of display in
shows, etc. or what would be the corrct venues for them.
Thanks,
Regards,
John Rodgers
Birmingham, AL
Vince Pitelka wrote:
>>Also, you must remember that molds did not start with casting, but
>>just extended that technique. It is possible that molds are actually
>>the oldest methid of forming pottery. I recall seeing a photograph of
>>a bowl from the neolithic period that was formed by pressing clay
>>into a wicker basket which served as a mold.
>>I see molds as just a different way of forming pottery. In both
>>throwing and molds the final results depend on the skill and artistic
>>imagination (if any) of the potter, and on the individual attention
>>each piece gets.
>>
>>
>
>Malcolm -
>I appreciate all of your comments. The above points have been discussed in
>this thread, and of course molds are perfectly appropriate tools for potters
>or sculptors to use for many different reasons. So far, that has not been
>the issue in this discussion.
>
>I'd be interested in the source of the concept of a woven basket being used
>as a mold for a neolithic pot. It makes sense, but I have never heard of
>that, and I have studied the emergence of clay vessels all over the world.
>It is well established that baskets preceded pottery production in almost
>all cultures, because woven baskets traveled well, and thus were used by
>late paleolithic nomadic hunter-gatherers. Clay vessels did not travel
>well, and those paleolithic peoples who did discover the phenomena of fired
>clay seemed to use it only for figurines and amulets.
>
>Since baskets were around before clay vessels, it is natural that emergent
>neolithic potters would turn to woven vessels for inspiration and surface
>decoration. In some cases, as in Chinese and Egyptian neoleolithic vessels,
>the basket imagery was often just painted on the surface, whereas in others
>the woven materials were pressed into or rolled across the surface, creating
>the well known "corded" surface. It would be easy to mistake that surface
>as having been "press-molded" into a basket, and it would be just like an
>art historian to make that assumption. God bless art historians, but they
>do have the bad habit of making inaccurate assumptions about process and
>technique without ever asking those in the know, and then perpetuating those
>false assumptions in generations of scholarly papers.
>
>Yes, of course I realize that molds have played an important part in the
>making of great pots and sculpture. Most of the body parts and armor for
>the Qin Terracotta Army were press-molded, but every single head is a
>portrait of an individual. Peruvian stirrup vessels were press-molded and
>then assembled, but the surface decoration seems to be unique on each one.
>I suppose that using molds was a matter of expedience, since pots were
>buried with almost every single deceased person. But once again, all of
>this has little to do with the discussion of whether or not slipcast or
>rampressed wares belong in venues that sell "handmade" fine craft.
>Best wishes -
>- Vince
>
>Vince Pitelka
>Appalachian Center for Craft
>Tennessee Technological University
>1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
>Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
>615/597-5376
>Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
>615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
>http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
>
>
>
| |
|
