Kat on thu 2 oct 03
Ok fine if we all had a choice as to study up on glaze technology and
or to produce work, hands down we would rather, throw, hand-build
or sculpt. (Maybe I am specking for the majority)
Time is precious, most of us have limited amount of it. Yet I find
many people come to me wanting to know about glaze technology
but not having the time or commitment to it. It is more like they want
to know the perfect glaze recipes and that is it. However Ceramics is
not that simple of a beast. There is no perfect clay no perfect glaze.
There is always a certain compromise. Really plastic clay may mean
being more careful with drying. A glaze may work for you for years than
suddenly it doesn't. Why?
The path to learning about glaze chemistry and the in's and out's of it is
long. Very long, there is no short cuts. So how do you encourage
people to learn the basics of glaze chemistry?
What would be the first step? the second and so forth?
Considering that a lot of people are more right minded and creative. Math
or science (for some) can be quite complex or uninteresting. So where
do I start. Yes even with RR and Johns' book I have found people have only
read his
glaze recipes, mix it up and can't figure it out why it doesn't work for them
in there situation. They never read anything else. I am not saying
"everyone" but some
do this. Only that I tried once to teach glaze technology, and I started
it out by
giving everybody the periodic table to first let people know the
abbreviation of the
chemicals we needed to know. You could hear the doors to their brains
shutting at
that point.
Glaze what a beast.....
Kat
kat@digitalfire.com
-----------------------------
John Hesselberth on thu 2 oct 03
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 10:59 AM, Kat wrote:
> The path to learning about glaze chemistry and the in's and out's of
> it is
> long. Very long, there is no short cuts.
Hi Kat,
I don't agree with this. I think we just need to find the ways. I
believe that enough glaze technology can be taught/learned in a day--or
2 at the most--to get a person started down the path of learning on
their own. No, you won't learn all the nuances in a day or two, but if
we can just get potters not to fear the unity formula and to begin to
look at every glaze they work with in unity terms--to get comfortable
with that concept--they will quickly become much more knowledgeable on
their own.
I think that can be done. I guess I'll have another chance to prove
that this Saturday. I'm giving a 1 day workshop to 17 potters at the PA
Guild of Craftsman facility. The class is full and the waiting list is
long enough that I know potters want to learn about glazes. We just
have to develop a way to eliminate the intimidation that seems to come
with the word "chemistry".
Regards,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Lee Love on fri 3 oct 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hesselberth"
> . I think we just need to find the ways. I
> believe that enough glaze technology can be taught/learned in a day--or
> 2 at the most--to get a person started down the path of learning on
> their own.
I agree with John. And I believe the workshop system back home is a
very good way to learn.
I cherish the workshops I attended with John Reeve and Pete Pinnell.
John Reeve publishes a fine book on glaze chemistry for the non-chemist. It
used to be available at Minnesota Clay.
Lee In Mashiko
Alisa Clausen on fri 3 oct 03
Dear Kat,
Yes, the path is long and there is no finite end.
The subject of glaze chemistry is not a mystery or need be treated as the
wort of our craft.
For us in the field, to dispell and eliminate this tradition of glaze being
somehow the "difficult and therefore bad" subject, we need to be extra
sensitive to our approach when teaching the subject.
I know that you are looking for perhaps a list of where to start and where
to sort of finalize, but that is not just here what I am responding to. I
will give you an example.
When I was in school, I failed, misreably, a math test. I was never given a
second chance, the benefit of the doubt that it was maybe one off and I
could cope with the class material and learn it. My teacher was not exactly
comfortable with the material she expected to teach, and her uncertainy and
frustration was contagious in the classroom.
Later, much later, I had a boss who delegated work because he relied on his
employees. I had a lot of math type jobs to do, and because my boss was
possitive, patient and believed in my ability to learn, I could do the work
expected of me. Mostly, he was not burdened or hindered by the idea of
math. It was an essential part of his job and it was not singled out as an
extra part of the whole.
It is the same in the glaze classroom. Glaze chemistry is part of the whole
and in my opinion, needs to be accepted as a natural and integral part of
the ceramic education, as say, the creating part. In working with clay,
there is tons of math. Just plain balance, perspective, volume, heights,
diameters, thickness, etc. That does not scare us. There are formulas for
learning glaze calculation that just need to be learned, same effort as one
learning to use a calliper.
Many of think that some things just come naturally for us. Some it is math,
others it is throwing. Perhaps what seems to come naturally to us is our
main interests. These interests can be muted or stimulated depending on the
source of exposure and accessibility to go further with the information.
I think it is a mistake to say, the clay is the fun part and the glaze is
the drudgery because it involves math. It all involves math and math is
just math. A lot of math is plugging in variables or can be easily solved
with a pocket calculator. Some people are better at math because they are
more experienced. Some people throw better because they are more
experienced. Some people are afraid because they are conditioned that math
is the same as anxiety.
Your students will follow your example if you can relax more with the
subject and show them that there are steps in building up understanding. No
one can just bite off the entire subject at one go, or in l6 classes, etc.
It is a building process of understanding, just like everything else in
clay. We can all learn the fundamentals to enable a basic usage of glaze
materials. Like anything else, those who are very interested in glaze will
make the time and go further. Those who are not but prefer to throw or
something else, will go further there.
There is no glaze curriculum where students come in and can learn it all in
one semester or so. They get fundamentals, learn where to go on logically
and must go on from there. However, it is imporant they remain open to
further learning by having a postive learning experience from the
beginning. That is to say that glaze chemisty/safety is an equal partnerin
the ceramic education.
regards from Alisa in Denmark
Ian Currrie's visit has even more convinced me of the above.
karen gringhuis on fri 3 oct 03
Kat -
>....if we all had a choice as to study up on glaze
technology and or to produce work, hands down we would
rather, throw, hand-build or sculpt. (Maybe I am
specking for the majority)<
Yes, Kat, there is a MINORITY - perhaps only me - who
would rather work with glazes than anything else. But
keep reading.
>I find many people come to me wanting to know about
glaze technology but not having the time or commitment
to it.<
You're absolutely right - no matter how simple we
might make glaze, some people are simply not
committed, period. I have offered to teach friends
privately - it's a very safe offer because no one ever
takes me up on it! They simply aren't committed to any
degree. Focus on the people who ARE interested.
>The path to learning about glaze chemistry....Very
long, there is no short cuts.<
I have to agree with Hesselberth here - it doesn't
have to be so long and tortuous. Like John, I could
walk someone thru the basics in about a day or a
couple of evenings.
>So how do you encourage people to learn the basics of
glaze chemistry? What would be the first step? the
second and so forth?<
>Considering that a lot of people are more right
minded and creative. Math or science (for some) can be
quite complex or uninteresting. So where
do I start. Yes even with RR and Johns' book I have
found people......never read anything else.
>I tried once to teach glaze technology, and I started
it out by giving everybody the periodic table.....You
could hear the doors to their brains
shutting<
Where do you start? Well, as you have learned, NOT
with a periodic table. It makes sense to you and me
but some people simply never took high school
chemistry. I suggest getting your hands on a Cushing
HANDBOOK, turning to page 53 and using this basic
approach to INGREDIENTS rather than jumping right into
oxides in a UMF. (I have no idea who or where you may
be teaching but I am assuming is it NOT in a
university setting in which a specific course content
is required? The audience makes a difference and I am
assuming you are talking about beginners.)
After sitting thru six years of Cushing's lectures (by
choice) on glaze and raw materials, his approach to
"Constructing Your Own Cone 9 Base Glaze" (pg. 53) is
where I would start with a non-academic audience. (No,
this is NOT where HE started in his university
classes.) The CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE presented can
easily transfer to any temperature range. It is not
necessarily where I would stop but it would be enough
to present to beginners the basic structure of "what
the hell IS a glaze anyway?"
Having myself started years ago in a municipal art
center at the "what's a frit?" stage, I contend the
first thing people need is a structure or framework
within which to ORGANIZE the myriad of materials and
concepts involved in glaze. IMHO pg. 53 of the
HANDBOOK presents such a basic structure. At minimum
is it a structure around which to build lesson plans
to guide the curious. Angela Fina used to use Fruit
Salad as a structural starting point. The UMF doesn't
have to be the first lesson. The committed ones will
get there soon enough and the others will at least
have an idea of why various ingredients are in a
glaze.
LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN to what people THINK they want to
know - which often may not really be glaze calc per
se. By listening to the questions asked, one can tell
at what level someone is thinking about glaze - or
ceramics in general. *** We know what they need to
know (it's second nature to us) but we are in danger
of forgetting what it's like NOT to know it. ***
I also contend most people will never actually
formulate a glaze from scratch. Rather they are more
likely to take an existing recipe and tweak it, even
if it's only changing the colorants. So let's start
by teaching them WHY to tweak various types of
ingredients. If we got them doing just this much &
looking at actual fired results, the curious ones
regardless of brain sidedness might turn into
committed ones who keep going. They would at least
understand the potential gain from "why bother with
glaze study?"
=====
Karen Gringhuis
KG Pottery
Box 607 Alfred NY 14802
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
iandol on sat 4 oct 03
Dear Karen Gringhuis,=20
I have not read "the Cushing HANDBOOK" and there may not be a copy in =
Australia in a public library. Perhaps you could post a precis of what =
this is all about on page 53 for those of us in foreign climes?
From the tenor of your note, you are proposing an empiric approach based =
on direct trials with real materials. If so, I would agree.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis
Ron Roy on sun 5 oct 03
I have some thoughts on this - it is not an easy thing to teach. There is a
lot to learn and that can be a deterrent to many.
The hopeful part is how interesting it is right from the beginning.
Without it - making and adjusting glazes (and clay bodies) is a guessing
game that takes way too much time testing and retesting. And - from my
experience - there is no guarantee you will get what you want before you
run out of ideas.
Working with the Seger unity formula gets you there much faster. In the end
it is a time saver - pay me now or pay me later seems to apply here.
Most people think - because chemistry is involved - they need to know it. I
don't and that did not stop me.
OK - I did know that water was H2O - so it is not a big step to understand
that Calcium oxide is CaO.
The biggest problem is that most potters don't think they can learn it -
and that is just not so.
After all - the computer does all the math - not like in the old days when
you had to know the numbers and use a calculator - or in my case a slide
rule.
You need to understand something about me to keep all this in perspective -
I am a potter - barely got out of high school - never did understand most
of the math or the chemistry - it's the wanting to know how things work
that was my greatest asset. Anything I need to know was not hard to find -
I wish ClayArt had been around when I was learning it - it would have been
so much easier.
What mystifies me is why there are so few questions from those who are
learning glaze calculation.
RR
>> The path to learning about glaze chemistry and the in's and out's of
>> it is
>> long. Very long, there is no short cuts.
>
>Hi Kat,
>
>I don't agree with this. I think we just need to find the ways. I
>believe that enough glaze technology can be taught/learned in a day--or
>2 at the most--to get a person started down the path of learning on
>their own. No, you won't learn all the nuances in a day or two, but if
>we can just get potters not to fear the unity formula and to begin to
>look at every glaze they work with in unity terms--to get comfortable
>with that concept--they will quickly become much more knowledgeable on
>their own.
>
>I think that can be done. I guess I'll have another chance to prove
>that this Saturday. I'm giving a 1 day workshop to 17 potters at the PA
>Guild of Craftsman facility. The class is full and the waiting list is
>long enough that I know potters want to learn about glazes. We just
>have to develop a way to eliminate the intimidation that seems to come
>with the word "chemistry".
>
>Regards,
>
>John
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Earl Krueger on sun 5 oct 03
Many years ago my (then future) wife and I worked in a pharmaceutical
lab. My job was to take an idea and develop the procedures to test it.
My wife's job was to take my "recipies" and run tests, day after day.
I couldn't do her job because I got bored too quickly and was not
careful enough. She couldn't do mine because she didn't have the
interest in the how's and why's. If she were required to learn glaze
formulation it would be a very long and hard road for her.
After reading a couple of books on glaze chemistry I built a
spreadsheet to do the math and started formulating glazes. They were
all disasters. Couldn't make a clear glaze for the life of me !! I
understand quite well what a mole is and atomic ratios so what was the
problem?
Turns out my background of working with lab quality pure chemicals and
the books I read using theoretical formulas for various minerals was
the crux of the problem. Sure, the books said to get the real analysis
from your supplier but I assumed there would be minor contaminants, not
significant differences from the theoretical formulas.
I think the theory, as put forth in various books, is good but I also
believe they do a disservice by not discussing just how much real world
materials differ from the theoretical formulas. It wasn't till I read
the John and Ron book that this became clear to me.
Earl...
Bothell, WA
iandol on mon 6 oct 03
Dear Ron Roy,=20
Perhaps one fact which is a deterrent to acquiring "Glaze Know How" is =
"Time". Regardless of the origin of the recipe, be it computer =
generated, recipe from a book or magazine, a lift from Clayart or a gift =
from a generous tutor, getting you hands on the fired sample is the =
reward which motivates you to go further, to try new things, to explore =
variations and to seek explanations.
Would you agree that access to a small, simple (or if you wish to follow =
Mel with all the latest in mod cons, and can afford them) kiln that you =
can control which may be fired frequently, if necessary on a daily basis =
is the key to becoming an accomplished person with glazes.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia.
Lee Love on tue 7 oct 03
Something I did before my current kiln was built, was fire glaze test in the
kilns of many different friends. I always included two sets of
"ringers" (these are tests I also have been firing in my own kiln): a
John Baymore Shino I converted and my Strontium Copper Blue/Green/Red. I
try to include at least three of each (in my own kiln, I put in 9 of each)
for the minimum of bottom, middle and top.???I know how these glazes work,
so they are an indication
The Shino is a great indicator of early reduction and the copper is
an indicator of over all reduction and it only goes red with heavy
reduction. I can also tell how fast the kiln cooled by the appreances of
the glazes. I can also tell temperature, flashing and the amounts of ash
that is deposited during the firing, by looking at these two glazes. These
factors give me a baseline to measure the "unknown" glaze tests against.
They are sort of my reduction/oxidation, cooling rate. flashing, ash and
temperature Seger cones. These are similar to glaze draw tiles, except you
don't take them out until the end of the firing.
The most interesting thing I discovered using these tiles so
far, is that Shinos come out with more color in my teacher's noborigama in
the oxidation chamber than they do in the reduction chamber. I think this
is because all the chambers recieve early reduction and it cools very
slowly.
Lee In Mashiko
Lee Love on tue 7 oct 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "iandol"
>Would you agree that access to a small, simple (or if you wish to follow
Mel with all the latest in >mod cons, and can afford them) kiln that you can
control which may be fired frequently, if necessary >on a daily basis is the
key to becoming an accomplished person with glazes.
Ivor, I agree with everything except "simple kiln you can control."
The most magnificent glazes I am familiar with, came out of large, hard to
control, wood fired kilns: chuns, celadons, shinos, temmokus, sagees, nukas,
kakis, and the list goes on...
You might have more bad results out of kilns like this, but they
make up for it by giving your wonderful results you never expected. One
thing you have to do with a large kiln is learn the kiln's personality.
Lee In Mashiko.
| |
|
