Vince Pitelka on tue 1 feb 05
> I could find nothing in my research that indicates that one shape is
> prettier or more beautiful than the other. If a kiln is build for
> aesthetics, I think some more planning should be done. It is a working
> tool.
Dear Anne McGill, PH.D.,
You say that you could find nothing in your research to indicate that one
shape is prettier or more beautiful than the other? You had to do research
to try and figure out if an arch is more beautiful than a box? Is this what
your Ph.D. trains you to do? I am not bashing the Ph.D. I am the least
educated person in my family with an MFA, because my mom, dad, wife,
brother, and son all have doctorates. But let's clarify something.
Establishing the inherent beauty of the arch requires no research. It is
evident to anyone with a modicum of aesthetic sensibility, except for those
rare individuals who are passionate about rectilinear forms.
And I don't begin to swallow your logic about industry's use of the box for
kiln designs. They use it because it is cheap, and because they use
computerized sealed-face burners that maintain absolute control over draft
and atmosphere. So yes, they can make any shape volume work as a kiln. It
is not at all the same for the studio potter building her or his own kiln.
For them, especially with cross-draft designs, the arch usually seems to
work better.
Let me qualify that by saying that the above is just my own opinion. But
potters have a very close relationship with their kilns. They need to feel
good about the design from a functional and an aesthetic point of view. I
love arches. I will never build a flat-top kiln. It goes against the grain
for me.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Anne McGill on tue 1 feb 05
Arches and mythology
I teach Architecture and Engineering and decided to do a little research last night. I know that the classic stone arch is rarely used in modern architecture, or if it is, it is a decorative motif. The steel cage construction of our modern buildings is used over the entire world. Wooden stick construction is the common method for most residential housing.
The Ceramics Industry left behind arched and beehive construction years ago. If that form of heat work was so good, why have we not seen a beehive brick kiln constructed since 1940?
Industry uses many rectangular kilns made of fiber. The roofs are flat. It seems that the shape of the box or kiln is not that important. Making a tunnel kiln or car kiln that will allow a moving car to pass through it is the most important aspect of the kiln. Industry is very concerned with cost per firing. If arches were cost effective, I am sure they would still be used.
In Nils Lou’s book “The Art of Firing”, he points out that the shape of the kiln is not important, but how the kiln is stacked and how much ware is included in each firing is very important. There seems to be a potter’s mythology that flame and heat works best over curved surfaces. There is no evidence to support this claim. A box is filled with heat and the stack creates a draft to expel smoke and excess energy. The ratio of heat in, excess out seems to be very important.
I could find nothing in my research that indicates that one shape is prettier or more beautiful than the other. If a kiln is build for aesthetics, I think some more planning should be done. It is a working tool.
Anne Mcgill PH.D.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Bruce Girrell on tue 1 feb 05
Anne McGill wrote:
>In Nils Lou’s book “The Art of Firing”, he points out that
>the shape of the kiln is not important, ...
In fact I think he also goes on to say that an arched top tends to reflect
heat toward a focus, thereby creating a hot spot in the kiln and that a flat
top provides a more even heat distribution. One other advantage that Nils
demonstrates is the ease with which the height of the kiln can be altered,
if needed, when a flat roof is employed.
>If a kiln is build for aesthetics, I think some more planning
>should be done. It is a working tool.
Indeed. I like arches too, but the flat roof on my kiln went together in no
time at all and it works just fine.
Bruce "well, OK, an hour or so" Girrell
Hank Murrow on tue 1 feb 05
On Feb 1, 2005, at 7:03 AM, Bruce Girrell wrote:
> Anne McGill wrote:
>
>> In Nils Lou=92s book =93The Art of Firing=94, he points out that
>> the shape of the kiln is not important, ...
>
> In fact I think he also goes on to say that an arched top tends to=20
> reflect
> heat toward a focus, thereby creating a hot spot in the kiln and that=20=
> a flat
> top provides a more even heat distribution. One other advantage that=20=
> Nils
> demonstrates is the ease with which the height of the kiln can be=20
> altered,
> if needed, when a flat roof is employed.
Dear Bruce;
I concur with this opinion. Having built seventy or so kilns with=20
arches it was a stretch to build a kiln with a 'nearly' flat roof. The=20=
results, however, speak for themselves, as the Doorless Fiberkiln fires=20=
very evenly both in temperature and atmosphere. I think part of this=20
good performance is due to the 'nearly' flat roof. I can show a pic of=20=
it to anyone inclined to ask.
Originally, I designed a couple of mating wall sections, rather like=20
the rings for electric kilns, to add height to the chamber on a per=20
firing basis. However, the kiln customers were happy with the kiln as=20
delivered and never requested the 'rings'.
Cheers, Hank in Eugene
www.murrow.biz/hank
Steve Irvine on wed 2 feb 05
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 06:03:29 -0800, Anne McGill wrote:
>I could find nothing in my research that indicates that one shape is prettier or more
>beautiful than the other. If a kiln is build for aesthetics, I think some more planning should
>be done. It is a working tool.
Yes, that's all true I suppose, and everyone on the planet Vulcan would probably agree with
you, but have you ever actually sprung an arch yourself? Put the bricks in place, taken away
the arch form and seen the bricks hanging in a lovely curve in space? It's a wonderful
experience, a highlight of the many, many jobs a potter does. There is much more in all of
this than simply getting a finished product. It's a way of life, an approach to finding a place in
the world that is meaningful. Making things with aethetics in mind, whether it is a pot, kiln or
even a cone pack is part of a bigger picture, a means of expression and a line of
communication.
Steve Irvine
http://www.steveirvine.com
Randall on wed 2 feb 05
>But let's clarify something.
>Establishing the inherent beauty of the arch requires no research. It is
>
>And I don't begin to swallow your logic about industry's use of the box for
>kiln designs. They use it because it is cheap, and because they use
>computerized sealed-face burners that maintain absolute control over draft
>and atmosphere.
>Let me qualify that by saying that the above is just my own opinion. But
>potters have a very close relationship with their kilns. They need to feel
>good about the design from a functional and an aesthetic point of view. I
>love arches.
Actually arches are extremely beautiful, they are also structurally
superior to a lintel or other device used to support an flat top- be
it a window, bridge, or roof of a kiln.
I just happen to prefer the gothic lancet arch.
The big kilns used for architectural work in the 1890's were beehive shaped.
Arches however require a lot more effort to build- bricks have to be
cut wedge shaped and carefully fitted, a curved form needs to be made
to support the arch as it's assembled.
True story- in 1978 the building I lived in had 2 big boilers, the
firebricks protecting the iron facades of them from the heat kept
falling down, requiring the contractor to come out, replace them
about once a week!
One day I crawled inside the firebox and examined the "why", the
"why" was they had firebrick going about 8' across and 2' up entirely
supported by one piece of steel angle iron, naturally the heat warped
the iron, the iron gave way, the bricks fell out and were replaced at
$3,500 a pop.
The bricks originally were installed in a slight ARCH shape- no iron
required, so I suggested to the boss that he have the contractors
install them in an arch form. That was done and the problem was
solved.
Randall
Webdirector of "Randall's Lost New York City"
A historical photo essay of lost buildings from NYC's architectural history
http://www.lostnewyorkcity.com/
YIM: lostnyc2004
John Britt on wed 2 feb 05
We should qualify wether we are using fibre or brick. I don't think anyone
is using hard brick for flat tops. I think folks should also consider the
problems of flat tops and the problems with arches. Ever had a 'flat top"
electric? What is the most common problem with the lid?
People can say many things but the proof is in the results. Do your
research! These people who are giving you advice won't be there after you
build it. Look at the archives and see the problems of flat tops and the
problems with ITC.
Look at Bailey's, Giel,etc. Look at friends kilns, look at the kilns at
schools where they get the most usage. The best thinkg you can do is to
visit other people and talk about their kilns. They love to share. They
love their kilns and will tell you how great they are, but after a while
they will tell you the MANY problems they have.
Then you decide.
Hope it helps,
John Britt
www.johnbrittpottery.ocm
Lee Love on wed 2 feb 05
It really grates on my nerves to see the term "mythology" misused.
When people use it politically, the term is use in relationship to
something that is false or untrue. For example, It is "other people's
religion." Actually Myth is simply stories that contain metaphors that
have multiple levels of meaning. Everybody gets the surface meaning, but
the deeper meaning goes over the heads of some. Folks like the Gnostics
were persecuted for pointing this out. The trouble is, that the ability
to understand metaphor is similar to the ability to recognize esthetics
beauty, or math or athletic ability. We all have varying capabilities in
these areas.
Anne McGill wrote:
>I could find nothing in my research that indicates that one shape is prettier or more beautiful than the other. If a kiln is build for aesthetics, I think some more planning should be done. It is a working tool.
>
>
　It is your eye that tells you if a box is prettier than the shape of a
whale or an over turned boat.
You can bet your money though, that if a potter disregards the aesthetic
beauty of their tools, it will show in their pots.
You can apply the Morris quote below to the studio too:
William Morris once said, that: "if you want a golden rule that will fit
everything, this is it -- have nothing in your houses that you do not
know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/ WEB LOG
http://public.fotki.com/togeika/ Photos!
Louis Katz on wed 2 feb 05
Anne, Bruce,
Just because Nils Lou or a Phd says something does not mean it is a=20
fact. Matter of fact just cause I say it does not mean it is a fact=20
either.
Bruce:
This "reflect towards a focus" would be great if it were a mirror=20
surface, but a bunch of fire brick can do this as well as a bucket full=20=
of sand. Reminds me of some double venturi stuff I heard years ago.=20
Even if it did reflect towards what would be its focus if it were=20
smooth and reflecting light, the focus would be under several layers of=20=
kiln shelves.
Anne:
Shape has importance. Corners are cold (at least they look this way in=20=
kilns), a sphere has less surface per volume than a square, and I have=20=
yet to see a triangular kiln. To me the part of your post about shape =20=
was just designed to raise my blood pressure . Replace one myth of=20
questionable truth with another. Just because industry in large kilns=20
or fiber kilns does not use curved surfaces is not an indicator about=20
small kilns used by potters. Industry also does not use hand forming=20
methods for pottery nor does it fire shino. Does this mean I should=20
give them up because they are "inefficient" or give them up just=20
because industry does not use them?
Industry did not give up beehive kilns because round is less efficient=20=
in terms of fuel, or evenness, but because they had to be hand stacked=20=
and those rectilinear shelves left to much space around the sides. They=20=
went to tunnel kilns for many reasons, but while I have considered=20
building a tunnel raku kiln just for fun, its not practical for me to=20
have one.
BTW just because a sphere is more surface area/volume efficient does=20
not mean an arch gains you anything if you consider net stacking space=20=
vs surface area.
Should a coffee cup be considered a working tool and should it be=20
bought from some store that uses $'s as a poor excuse for value? No one=20=
should ever assume that cost efficency money in/ money out is the sole=20=
criterion for purchasing or building anything. If it was we would all=20
be out of business and living in drab boxes, and drinking from some=20
plastic dohicky with a sippy top. As I see it all tools are working=20
tools. We need more beautiful tools, tools designed with grace beauty=20
and yes real Efficiency, renewable resources in, humanity out. I await=20=
a day when economics is a tool in the service of man rather than money.
Also I think there have been some beehive kilns built since 1940. I=20
think the trend away from them has more to do with mechanized handling=20=
than anything else. One was made out of softbrick in WY but the=20
brickyard went out of business in the 90's . D'Hannis Brick near San=20
Antonio I think has some relatively new ones. People in Thailand are=20
still building bottle kilns for firing ceramics, brand new one on the=20
Korat-Choke Chai road. Why? I don't know, but they are not here, and I=20=
am not industry.
If this seems like a ramble, sorry. I am sorry if it seems harsh. It is=20=
not intended that way, just direct. I do agree that mildly curving=20
kiln arches seem unlikely to affect the flow of gases inside the kiln=20
much and that a cube might be as effective of even more effective than=20=
a cube with one slightly curving side. Then again they might not. The=20=
generalizations that expressed these things are too general.
Louis Katz
On Feb 1, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Bruce Girrell wrote:
> Anne McGill wrote:
>
>> In Nils Lou=92s book =93The Art of Firing=94, he points out that
>> the shape of the kiln is not important, ...
>
> In fact I think he also goes on to say that an arched top tends to=20
> reflect
> heat toward a focus, thereby creating a hot spot in the kiln and that=20=
> a flat
> top provides a more even heat distribution. One other advantage that=20=
> Nils
> demonstrates is the ease with which the height of the kiln can be=20
> altered,
> if needed, when a flat roof is employed.
>
>> If a kiln is build for aesthetics, I think some more planning
>> should be done. It is a working tool.
>
> Indeed. I like arches too, but the flat roof on my kiln went together=20=
> in no
> time at all and it works just fine.
John K Dellow on thu 3 feb 05
Bruce Girrell wrote:
>Anne McGill wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>In Nils Lou=92s book =93The Art of Firing=94, he points out that
>>the shape of the kiln is not important, ...
>> =20
>>
>
> One other advantage that Nils
>demonstrates is the ease with which the height of the kiln can be altere=
d,
>if needed, when a flat roof is employed.
>
> =20
>
When I move and rebuild my workshop and kiln, I intend to build a, top-ha=
t/door less, kiln and make provision to allow the top to be raise 1&1/2 i=
t's height and also have a flat car . This will allow me to adjust the ki=
ln for a very large pot by adding soft brick to the base.The car will mak=
e it easier to load.
John Dellow "the flower pot man"
From the land down under
Home Page http://www.welcome.to/jkdellow
http://digitalfire.com/education/people/dellow/
Janet Kaiser on thu 3 feb 05
Uhh-OH! Not that old nut again?! I have
absolutely nothing to contribute to the debate
and secretly think 99.9% of others do not have
anything NEW to say either... You are either for
or agin flatties or curvies, period.
It may just be new to some that recent studies
have proved that rats prefer long, skinny
rectangles to squares or "short" rectangles. I
guess if you display a preference for a
particular shape, the more extreme examples of
the shape will appear best/better to less obvious
examples? Not just if you are a rat, either! LOL!
For what it is worth, I decided (just for myself,
so no need to bristle) that the pro and con camps
when it came to flat and arched kilns, divided
neatly into the realists and the sentimentalists,
the manufacturers and the artists, the hawks and
the doves... Oh, no, that is something else! LOL!
But seriously, those who perceive true beauty in
uniformity and predictability, yet do not
begrudge the payoff (a down-right ugly kiln) are
into Realpolitik and are Hawk Potters to a
wo/man... The kiln remains "just a tool" to them
and they raise their eyebrows in genuine surprise
when the Doves start cooing about their kilns,
like they were talking about lovers (when well
behaved) or fractious children (when they are
malfunctioning)!
I am a lover of arches when it comes to kilns. It
would not matter if someone PROVED I'd work 1000%
more efficiently if I swopped to a flat top. I
absolutely would NOT change for all the tea in
China. And I doubt I am unique here, but there is
a perverse, stubborn streak in my character which
delights in getting the best out of difficult
circumstances. In the case of a kiln which has
hot/er and cool/er areas, low/high reduction and
all the other little foibles which are possible,
it would be my greatest joy to get to know them
first (that takes time) and then make my work to
accommodate those spaces, conditions &
temperatures (even more "lost time"). But the
challenge... Aaahhh!! YES!! Like a giant 3D
jigsaw which fits together perfectly whilst it
keeps singing and dancing!!! LOVE IT! It is an
intellectual challenge with meat and bones..
I suspect this weakness for what I perceive as an
"advanced art" did not develop in the workshop or
clay studio to start off, but was an extension of
learning to cook with primitive tools... Most
especially my grandmother`s kitchen where she had
an open fire with a cast iron oven to the side of
it. The door was arched and there was one
removable/adjustable steel shelf. No namby-pamby
temperature controls or gauges there! Just the
amount of coal on the fire versus timing, plus
variables such as weather conditions/time of
year, quantities and numbers to consider and take
into account. I even remember learning how to
judge how hot the oven would be or how long it
would take to boil the kettle on the trivet, by
simply looking at the fire. Something I am sure
lead me to being a pretty good judge of molten
glazes, most especially during raku firing... I
only had to been shown once, to see and fully
appreciate the transition from "red" to "white".
And that is probably the crux of the matter... My
preferred modus operendi is as an
artist-craftsman whose production of work depends
on experience as much as creativity and
intuition. I would NOT be happy as a
dial-watching, laboratory technocrat. I can
appreciate what I adore, would drive others to
distraction. Honestly I can... They would HATE my
preferred way of working for exactly the same
reasons I love it. Quite possibly neither are
right or wrong. We are just different, like the
birds of the air... And birds of a feather flock
together... Only natural!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
**************************************************
**********
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
Contact: Janet Kaiser: The International Potters
Path
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 28/01/2005
| |
|
