Bill Edwards on tue 7 oct 03
While I read several remarks about glazes and
analogies I couldn't help but be reminded why many
don't contribute glazes hardly at all anymore to the
group.
Let the glazes be sent. If you want to analyze the
glaze then thats your perogative! Many glazes are
written to work via many years of on site and demand
testing by artists which may have never had
calculations tools. There are glazes that have appeal
and may not be for table-ware function, nor will they
still look the same if they are re-worked.
If a person who uses calculation tool wants to re-work
the glaze and then give us their insight and show us
the pictures of their revision then thats a reasonable
way to lead someone into why and where you changed the
glaze and the concluded end to your effort on changes!
But to look at a recipe and make a snap judgement is
not inviting to my way of thinking. Look at the
recipe, run it through whatever system you like, if
the numbers don't add up ask the original poster about
that. If it doesn't fit whoever's criteria, thats not
your problem until you adjust the glaze yourself, fire
it yourself and then if you want to share the
experience show us the pictures of your version so it
clears up any differences.
Durability is great! Not saying its not. What I am
saying is lets not chase off anyone submitting glazes
for any reason without making worthwhile investments
in time ourselves prior to fully examining a glaze
away. People are prone to believe the viability of a
glaze chem analysis by the glaze mixer using an
original formulation and firing it and making a
picture of the fired piece and then comparing it to
the same process once they make whatever additional
changes to the glaze that might reflect a more
suitable outcome?
In many years of glaze study I have found all too
often that many glazes don't even begin to compare to
the original glaze once tampered with. I believe most
experts would semi-agree that for every one great
glaze we find at least 50 to 100 more fail for one
reason or another.
Some artists work strictly for visual appeal with
glazes that are deemed pretty decent and durable
enough to have made it in history for at least 50
years, and have found their way in books. Raku glazes
like copper are weak as any glaze out there but its
still in use everywhere there's a raku kiln. Lets not
dismiss the attributes of any glaze without properly
following some guide-lines and hashing it out in a
manner consistent with our findings and pictures of
the finished project and then we can add or subtract
materials through molecular or weight analysis that
shows how we came to our conclusion in regards to
someone else's glaze contribution. This also has
absolutely nothing to do with stability or food safety
but we can cover that as well next time once a
submitted glaze has been decided upon by the artist as
to which category they might use it in?
I would love to see more people willing to contribute
glazes every week. It provides good entertainment to
those who need to calculate on a daily basis and also
is great homework for those beginning to understand
glazes. However you have to have something to put it
against other than paper and an analysis. Show us the
pictures if your gonna whip out the changes before
anyone gets a chance to test the theory out. Then if a
new decoction looks the same, smells the same and
tastes the same after all the shifting of materials,
by golly we might be on to something? Those
contributing their glaze finds are a welcome breath of
fresh air to me!!!! It has a lot to do with pottery
doesn't it?
Ron and John were both capable of providing great
pictures with their texts but thats based on their
chemistry. I don't think either of them were trying to
convey the message that they can make all glaze's
better and keep the same appeal as all the originals.
I know for a fact they can make any glaze a better
glaze if we are looking for food service stability
and/or durability. Its a method of providing safer
glazes with outstanding durability but not
neccessarily going to match tooth and nail any given
glaze handed to them as far as fired appeal is
concerned. If wrong, I am sure one of them will
contact me and provide me the right answer. They have
indeed mastered the glazes they provide and I think
that is a good working mechanism for letting others
learn this process on clayart. It takes images,
comparisons and calculations to prove/disprove theory.
Ron/John your names are usually associated by proxy
when someone mentions glazes and shifting the
chemistry.(That's a good thang!) Let it be know that
this has nothing at all to do with you two! You are
both admired and appreciated and I, as well as many
others are anticipating an addition to your latest
book!!!
I quit submitting glazes because the original glazes I
sent were re-hashed over and over and over to a point
I didn't have any idea what some were even talking
about when they wrote me about a glaze I contributed.
The Chrome Tin Reds became one of those ordeals. It
got calculated away to some wild something that may or
may not have worked with my name still attached to it.
I don't have the time to test each theory and then
post a picture against what I already have tested and
what worked based on the knowledge and calculations I
used at the time. Confusing isn't it! And not only do
I use calculations tools, many times I use the company
I used to use for my manufactuing business to lab test
my wares for safety using FDA/FSIS protocol for
testing durability in food service situations. None of
that mattters once a glaze recipe is deformed enough
to not work but yet your name is still lingering
around the glaze that someone else re-worked and it
took on a whole new look.
Bill Edwards
=====
http://www.tallapoosariverpottery.com/
Bill Edwards
PO Box 267
Lafayette, AL, 36862
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
| |
|
