S.E.W. on thu 11 mar 04
O.K... I guess the issue regarding overglazes is one that we all have a =
different opinion on. I use "metallics" and "lusters" on a majority of =
my work and they are both overglazes. In response to Tonys post about =
china paints, they too are overglazes. All three of these, metallics, =
lusters, and china paints, are by definition overglaze. They are applied =
to fired glaze and they all are fired between cone 018-021. In regards =
to Snails post about overglazes, I agree that the terms "underglaze" and =
"overglaze" are describing the process and not the glaze. I mean really, =
these definitions are created by the manufacturers of the glazes so that =
it can simplify the entire glazing process. But in a way, what's wrong =
with that? We can analyze different glazes and how they are applied for =
enternity, but that doesn't help those who are still trying to grasp the =
basic concept of glazing. They aren't going to making glazes and =
understand the chemicals in recipes from the very beginning. We all =
start with either no knowledge or just a basic knowledge of glazing and =
there has to be a straight forward basic idea or definition for us to go =
by. After we understand that, then it will make sense to us when we hear =
about engobes and china paints, not to mention recipes that have broken =
down the glaze ingredients into percentages.=20
My point is this. I find that the responses given to some of the =
clayart postings are a little vague and often don't take into account =
the level of knowlege at which the person who is asking the question =
has. That is where the overglaze topic started. The response was =
completely "out there" if someone reading it doesn't even understand the =
"basic" idea of an overglaze. They may as well used a "real" gold =
overglaze to sign their name. Do you really think someone that is having =
trouble with how to sign their name on the bottom of their pot is going =
to understand Davids reply about using overglaze to sign their name? =
There isn't anything wrong with giving them information, whether it is =
an advanced technique or not, but can we be a little more specific and =
explain ourselves a little better? I find that many clayart members have =
been doing this for so long that they forget not everyone is at their =
level of experience. It seems they let their egos get in the way when =
explaining themselves. I am sure I will get "knocked" for this post, but =
I have to back up those who are trying to learn and sometimes receive =
responses that make no sense to them at all.
Rachel
S.E.W. on thu 5 jan 06
O.k.. I guess the issue regarding overglazes is one that we all have a =
different opinion on. I use "metallics" and "lusters" on a majority of =
my work and they are both overglazes. In response to Tonys post about =
china paints, they too are overglazes. All three of these, metallics, =
lusters, and china paints, are by definition overglaze. They are applied =
to fired glaze and they all are fired between cone 018-021. In regards =
to Snails post about overglazes, I agree that the terms "underglaze" and =
"overglaze" are describing the process and not the glaze. I mean really, =
these definitions are created by the manufacturers of the glazes so that =
it can simplify the entire glazing process. But in a way, what's wrong =
with that? We can analyze different glazes and how they are applied for =
enternity, but that doesn't help those who are still trying to grasp the =
basic concept of glazing. They aren't going to making glazes and =
understand the chemicals in recipes from the very beginning. We all =
start with either no knowledge or just a basic knowledge of glazing and =
there has to be a straight forward basic idea or definition for us to go =
by. After we understand that, then it will make sense to us when we hear =
about engobes and china paints, not to mention recipes that have broken =
down the glaze ingredients into percentages.=20
My point is this. I find that the responses given to some of the =
clayart postings are a little vague and often don't take into account =
the level of knowlege at which the person who is asking the question =
has. That is where the overglaze topic started. The response was =
completely "out there" if someone reading it doesn't even understand the =
"basic" idea of an overglaze. They may as well used a "real" gold =
overglaze to sign their name. Do you really think someone that is having =
trouble with how to sign their name on the bottom of their pot is going =
to understand Davids reply about using overglaze to sign their name? =
There isn't anything wrong with giving them information, whether it is =
an advanced technique or not, but can we be a little more specific and =
explain ourselves a little better? I find that many clayart members have =
been doing this for so long that they forget not everyone is at their =
level of experience. It seems they let their egos get in the way when =
explaining themselves. I am sure I will get "knocked" for this post, but =
I have to back up those who are trying to learn and sometimes receive =
responses that make no sense to them at all.
Rachel
| |
|
