Hal Mc Whinnie on thu 1 jan 04
JOSE ARTIGAS GLAZE 655
spar 45
silica 25
whiting 15
epk 15
rutile 10
iron 10
fire to 1250 cent.
about cone 7=10
John Hesselberth on thu 1 jan 04
>
Hi Hal,
I'm confused by your use of the term 'glazes for handbuilders'. Are you
implying handbuilders don't make functional pottery and these glazes
are not for functional pottery? I frequently handbuild (as well as
throw or throw and modify) functional pottery. I know lots of others
who do also.
If you mean the glazes are only suitable for non-functional (or if you
prefer sculptural or decorative) pottery it would be less confusing if
you would say it that way. Please explain.
Regards,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Hal Mc Whinnie on fri 2 jan 04
these glazes are by a very well known potter who work with miro.
i use the term to incite some of the glaze grurus who reject all that is not
absolutely safe.
also those who dont do functional ware might be more willing to entertain
other glazes which can produce effects that the traditional potter doesnt seem to
desire.
John Hesselberth on fri 2 jan 04
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 09:28 AM, Hal Mc Whinnie wrote:
> i use the term to incite some of the glaze grurus who reject all that
> is not
> absolutely safe.
Hi Hal,
I think you have misinterpreted some of the comments made on glazes
when they are posted. I know my intent is simply to try to assure that
glazes are accompanied by appropriate notes on what their appropriate
uses and/or limitations might be.
We have many, many people on Clayart who are relatively new to mixing
and using glazes and who have little understanding of glaze chemistry.
The fact is there are a huge number of glazes floating around that are
not durable on or suitable for functional work. Some may be safety
problems but, for sure, lots of them have durability or crazing or
shivering or other problems that make their use on functional work
inappropriate. I have no problem at all with anyone using most any
glaze on pieces that cannot be used for food or drink--but I think the
recipes, when published in a forum like this, should be labeled as such.
I think it is irresponsible for those of us who have some understanding
of glaze chemistry (and I know you do) to not accompany our recipes
with some sort of editorial comment on potential properties. I, for
one, have bought too many pots to find the glaze lacking color after a
few trips through the dishwasher, or ones that craze and then stain
with things like coffee. That kind of product failure reflects poorly,
not only on that potter, but on all makers of handmade pottery and
ultimately costs all of us customers.
Regards,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Hal Mc Whinnie on sat 3 jan 04
this is why i have used the term glazes for handbuilders
Ron Roy on sat 3 jan 04
I don't reject any glazes - just put them where they belong - or at least
make sure there are no toxics associated with the unstable ones that come
in contact with food.
No one should be brow beaten into thinking unstable glazes are useless - It
is a great help however if one knows the difference and uses some
intelligence when deciding where to use em.
New information is not always welcome in spite of it's value.
RR.
>i use the term to incite some of the glaze grurus who reject all that is not
>absolutely safe.
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Earl Brunner on sat 3 jan 04
But Hal, I think you are missing the point. The word "handbuilders"
isn't really accurate. Handbuilding CAN and often IS functional. The
term denotes HOW something is made, NOT its function. I think all
anyone is asking you to do is to say it different. Glazes for
sculptural work, glazes for non-functional surfaces, glazes for
WHATEVER, just a term that DOESN'T suggest use on a possible food
surface, if the glaze isn't durable. Handbuilding doesn't fit that
usage.
Take a look at either or both books, 500 Teapots, 500 Bowls; there are
MANY forms in both of these books that would fit in the category of
handbuilt. Yet they are being called bowls or teapots, and as such,
SOMEONE would try to use them. The overarching principal that we ALL
should operate under when creating our work is the understanding that we
have NO CONTROL over how someone might use the object once it leaves our
control. And pottery in its fired state is about as permanent of a
material as we can make. Pots make 1000 years ago are still in use.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Hal Mc
Whinnie
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 5:57 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: glazes for handbuilders 2
this is why i have used the term glazes for handbuilders
Snail Scott on sat 3 jan 04
At 09:28 AM 1/2/04 EST, you wrote:
>also those who dont do functional ware might be more willing to entertain
>other glazes which can produce effects that the traditional potter doesnt
seem to
>desire.
I think the objection was not that this distinction
was invalid, but that handbuilding may be used to
produce both sculpture AND functional pottery. Many
excellent pieces of functional pottery are handbuilt,
and would still require safe, stable, durable glazes.
Perhaps a better subject line would be 'glazes for
not-pottery' or some such.
-Snail
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on sat 3 jan 04
Hey Snail,
try useless pots.
They are those I prefer.
Later,
"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/
Snail Scott on sun 4 jan 04
At 11:07 PM 1/3/04 -0500, Edouard wrote:
>Hey Snail,
>
>try useless pots.
>They are those I prefer.
Hey, Edouard-
I don' make no stinkin' pots -
I makes disfunctional ceramics!
-Snail
| |
|
