Steve Slatin on sun 22 may 05
Jonathan --
Senator Kennedy, at the National Press Club, January
16, 2002, said --
"In the United States Senate, one of the things I
observed in the early days -- and it's still used --
and that is that you take someone's argument and then
you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it.
And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number
of times."
On this subject, you appear to be running for Senate.
It seems to me that all they are trying to do is to
help people to understand what makes a well fitting
glaze, and how to anticipate what'll get you there.
And they encourage experimentation that gets differing
results, they're not trying to get people to all use
the same clays or glazes. MC6G is not a recipe book,
after all.
You are claiming that they are doing things that they
aren't doing and speculating about what their efforts
might look like in the future after they complete
their work, and condemning them based on your
prediction. Wheeee!
Jonathan, I believe from some of your other posts that
you are experienced and knowledgeable. If you don't
like their approach -- which is really just a
continuation of their research into the problem of
insufficient knowledge about glaze fit -- how about
doing the research yourself and putting it on your
website? I'm sure the clay community could only
benefit.
Respectfully -- Steve Slatin
--- Ceramic Design Group
wrote:
> > It is interesting to see that there is some
> testing for glaze fit
> > going vis a vis MC6G and commercial clay bodies.
> But what does it
> > provide and what does it mean?
>
>
Steve Slatin --
Some men will do here for diamonds what some men will do here for gold
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
Ceramic Design Group on sun 22 may 05
> It is interesting to see that there is some testing for glaze fit
> going vis a vis MC6G and commercial clay bodies. But what does it
> provide and what does it mean?
> MC6G are not the only published glazes available for this temperature
> range.
What I might suggest is that testing clays for glaze fit might only
tell us that at this particular time with this particular batch of
clay, the glaze fits or it doesn't. As we know from lengthy discussions
on this list, raw clay materials are variable and glazes might not fit
because of this. Will there be ongoing testing every time clay
companies make specific clay bodies that have been MC6G approved? I am
a bit confused.
After reading Carla F's post, and then John H's, then Ron's and other
replies, I am thinking that here is the way this will probably come
down when it is all said and done. There will be a post on clay art on
at the MC6G web site with something that might look like:
MC6G "insert glaze here" fits the following clay bodies":
Standard "insert clay body here"
> Laguna "insert clay
> body here"
> HighWater "insert clay
> body here"
> Tuckers "all clay
> bodies"
> MC6G "insert glaze here" does not fit the following clay bodies:
> Standard "insert clay body here"
> Laguna "insert
> clay body here"
> HighWater "insert
> clay body here"
>
>
> You get the picture right? So there will be lists of clays that seem
> to work with MC6G. Maybe there will be COE's of the glazes and the
> clay bodies. Maybe there will be some dillatometery charts. Not that
> everyone knows what they mean or how to deal with them, or for that
> matter, are they important.
What that says to me is that there may be something better about these
glazes that makes them work with whatever claybodies. Or does it say
that there something better about specific clay bodies that make them
work with MC6G? If they don't work, then are those clay bodies bad or
inferior?
I would think that all it means is exactly this: these glazes fit these
clay bodies. Done.
What it doesn't say is that there may be hundreds if not thousands of
other glazes that are ok and it is making judgements about
manufacturers claybodies (good bad or indifferent) and we will see the
results on the lis or on a web site, correct? With all the postings vis
a vis good clay bad clay and clay makers, if I am a clay maker and my
body isn't on your list, does that mean I make bad clay? I think this
is a potential huge problem and if the glazes don't fit, how would I
feel as a clay maker? My take is that it is the manufacturers'
responsibility to provide testing and then subsequent data on their
clay bodies. Let the buyer beware, caveat emptor. Test, test again, and
then test some more. Its your work.
I think that there is something intrinsically incorrect here and I am
trying to understand what it is exactly. Is there a particular agenda
here? Unless I am mis-understanding what is going on here, publishing
this kind of list, this kind of information I think is treading on some
very shaky territory indeed.
>
> I don't think that such results can be put forward as absolutes and in
> fact, I think that doing so does not take into consideration
> individual firing conditions. We know that there can be variations in
> dillatometry, variations in raw materials, variations made in mixing,
> blending, and firing. There are no ideal firing conditions. Even
> electric kilns with zone control are subject to variation. Not to
> mention everyone's own individual gas kiln firing methods. So I really
> wish to know what exactly is the need for this? How will it help me
> and help other pttters - knowing that there is variation in raw
> materials and practice and procedures, human error not withstanding.
> It does not and should not mean that the clay body is bad.
If we were to all use the same materials, the same clay bodies, the
same glazes, the same firing conditions, the same kilns fired the same
ways, things would either be pretty boring or everything would
certainly look the same. I think that there are limits to
predictability.
I would also posit that there are many glazes, stable glazes, that are
not in the MC6G book that fit many of the clay bodies out there. Its
hard for me to understand the narrowing down, or the distilling of the
the large clay and glaze information, sources, and products, into such
a small kind "special" list. Will then clay body manufacturers put a
little mark next to each clay body in their catgalogs that is tested to
be "OK" that represents "MC6G Tested" It's like going into the local
restaurant and the entrees having a "healthy heart" next to a few of
them eliminating all the other ones.
> Why is providing this information that "these glazes fit these bodies"
> important? We have not yet heard from manufacturers weighing in on
> this yet. Is this something that they will embrace?
>
> There are many on the list that hunger for accurate information that
> they can then take to the bank and make good pots and learn by doing,
> experimenting, and being involved with clay. My understanding was that
> the MC6G book is to help the reader work with glazes for durability,
> stability, and fit. How to work with the glazes and understand what
> contributes to these conditions and adjust the glazes accordingly. I
> could be wrong. Nonetheless, it is both prudent and necessary to
> differentiate between :
>
> 1.information that can be taken as facts that stand up to time
> and
> 2.opinions that are hugely subjective.
>
> I would suggest that in ceramics there is a huge amount of information
> with a lengthy and sometimes difficult learning curve. Within all this
> information, we all find shards, bits of information that after time,
> testing, and use, become facts for us because they work and work over
> time. Not opinions like "......it is my opinion that by doing such
> and such, it may work for you." That is not a fact,
>
> For example, I know that if I use Darvan 811, a sodium polyacrylate
> dispersant, in my casting bodies, I have a wide "best casting range"
> and with this product I can hone in to exactly what I need for proper
> rheology in my casting bodies. I know the correct amount of water, the
> correct amount of deflocculant to achieve what I require for this
> particular casting body. I use both large and small particle sized
> kaolins, light burning ball clays specifically blended for casting,
> flint, feldspar, pyrophyllite etc etc and the body works. It stands up
> to time. It is properly compounded, sieved, and once adjusted for the
> correct rheology on a daily basis, my castings will be correct.
>
> So given what variations in raw materials exist, I have developed
> glazes that work within the known parameters of this particular
> casting body. The best way that I have found to work in my situation
> is to eliminate whatever variables that I can. These are coarse clays,
> real dirty clays, most red clays any fireclay. Correct water, correct,
> deflocculant, mixing time, vibratory screening, testing rheology.
> These are not variables. This all works for me in my work situation.
> This is information that I can take to the bank to make sound ware.
>
> The variable is human error, and can exist in casting time, if the
> molds do not have the correct moisture content, and if there were
> errors in taking the slip stats before casting on a particular day.
> And yes, it did happen. We had an employee take it upon himself to
> adjust the viscosity in our main casting tank by adding water,
> contrary to what I spent much time instructing him on what was to be
> the correct procedure - which is adding deflocculant. The results were
> loss - many discarded castings, pieces collapsing in the firing, etc.
> Human error not following SOP (standard operating procedure) The big
> variable.
These are some facts, taken on the information that I know to be
correct, that work for me in our situation. In fact, it can and does
work for others providing the correct procedures and materials are
followed. Having consulted and designed casting bodies for others, if
they follow my directions, don't substitute materials, weight products
correctly, the results will be predictable and the process will work
correctly.
And what would happen if someone uses some MC6G and runs some Currie
grid with the materials, finds that sweet spot and there are just some
glazes that are to die for! Or someone runs a series of additions with
colorants....rutile, iron oxide, chrome, cobalt, nickel, manganese
dioxide, etc etc. All these additions will change the COE's of the
glaze and the resulting glaze fit. Will it fit the " approved"
claybodies? Probably not.
I'll relate a story. Many years ago before we were fortunate to have
our own mixing, sieving, and pumping equipment, etc we were asked to
cast alot of mugs using a specific already blended cone 5 slip and its
companion series of premixed glazes. No need to mention the company.
The first batch was fine. Nice color in the body, perfect glaze fit.
Cool. Then every subsequent batch crazed, Lots of lost product. Here
was a formulated casting body marketed with its own set of companion
glazes that were not compatible. Presented as a "system" that was
lauded to work together.
So again, I ask what is the point?" Approved" claybodies? I'm not sure
I agree.
Respectfully
Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Kaplan
> Ceramic Design Group
> PO Box 775112
> Steamboat Springs CO 80477
> (970) 879-9139
> (please use this address for all USPS deliveries)
>
>
> Plant Location:
> 1280 13th Street Suite K
> Steamboat Springs CO 80487
> (please use this address for all UPS, courier, and common carrier
> deliveries only!!)
>
> info@ceramicdesigngroup.net
> www.ceramicdesigngroup.net
> On May 20, 2005, at 4:55 PM, John Hesselberth wrote:
>
Craig Martell on mon 23 may 05
Vince was saying:
>The best potters will learn the theory, and will learn how to modify
>glazes and design their
>own. Any serious potter is capable of doing the same kind of research and
>development that Ron and John did, and the book should be seen only as a
>starting point for a potter to use in developing their own stable of glazes
>adapted to their own needs.
Hello Vince:
Bingo and thanks for getting to the real heart of the matter. I'm certain
that's the main point and purpose of the book.
later, Craig Martell Hopewell, Oregon
Ron Roy on mon 23 may 05
I think John has come up with a wonderful idea - find out what clay bodies
work with a certain group of glazes.
The Clay manufacturer can then say - these bodies work with these glazes.
A potter can choose clays with a better chance of the fit working out.
I dilatometer clays on a regular basis - some times the same clay at
different times - sometimes many times over the years. I must say I was
expecting more variation that there is. Not always so - because sometimes I
am trying to alter the expansion (CTE) of a clay.
In other words - you have to change quite a bit to make a significant
change in the CTE.
So aside from the benefits to the clay maker and the potter - there is also
another even more important aspect.
If we know the CTE of the glazes we are using - by calculating them - we
can calculate the expansion of glazes we want to try or make - to see if
they will fit the clays we are using.
Seems to me that knowing which clays work with which glazes should be more
in the public domain - why not?
RR
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Lee Love on mon 23 may 05
Steve Slatin wrote:
>
>Jonathan, I believe from some of your other posts that
>you are experienced and knowledgeable. If you don't
>like their approach --
>
Steve, I believe that Jonathon is protesting the "Glaze Orthodoxy" that
has been festering on ClayArt since the publication and promotion of
MC6G on this list.
I am happy that there is a glaze gospel for the masses. But there are
many other approaches, many of them not based on uniformity, and
industrial methods.
The mindset is similar to what is depicted in the movie "Kingdom of
Heaven." In the movie (yes, poetic license were taken), the Knights
Templar are portrayed being focused on "the one true way" and "killing
infidels." On the other hand, you have the Knight Hospitallers, whose
oath was simply to protect the pilgrims.
Myself, I side with the Knight Hospitallers. I want to help people find
their own way, not give them "the one true gospel" of clay. There is no
life in dogma.
--
李 Lee Love 大
愛 鱗
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Steve Slatin on mon 23 may 05
Lee--
I don't see a glaze orthodoxy on the list. If people
looking for functional-ware glazes get steered to MC6G
that might just be because it's especially focused on
glaze stability and fit for functional ware. Most
other glaze books aren't even very good at telling the
user what glazes are or aren't likely to be food-safe.
Until recently, there were nearly as many referrals to
the Cushing handbook as MC6G. I have the Cushing
handbook, and I treasure it, but it's not really a
book, it's a series of handouts and references in no
particular order (that I can perceive), and many glaze
recipes calling for materials now hard to find
(gerstley borate) or with handling safety issues
(barium carb). And there's no index.
As I read them, Ron and John aren't trying to be
comprehensive and all-encompassing. They give an
approach that allows repeatable results, and encourage
their readers to learn what's happening in their own
glaze workshops so that they can make their own
glazes, do their own tests, etc.
I had (and extensively used) MC6G for nearly a year
before I used my first recipe from it. It's quite
usable that way. I do my own tests, most from MC6G
guidance. But my favorite glaze is a slightly
modified recipe I found in the ClayArt archive posted
by Michael Redwine who had gotten it as a cone 8
reduction glaze and after replacing one ingredient
found it worked in oxidation. I made one more
substitution and it worked at cone 6 (and tests well).
You have chosen a totally different road in pottery
(one which I greatly envy you). You've gone to a
place where pottery lore* has been handed down and
preserved for centuries, and traditional equipment and
materials are still used. You apprenticed to a true
master, and learned to use a wooden inertia-wheel,
measure 'wet' by volume, and fire wood.
I think this is fantastic. But I use an electric
wheel, have a computer-controlled electric kiln and
revel in my strain-gauge electronic scales. The fact
that what you do does work and you can produce lovely
pots is a good reminder to us all that there are other
ways to skin a cat. Tied as you are, though, to
products and procedures particular to one small spot
on the globe, I could hardly hope to take up your
procedures and get repeatable results. I'm glad you
carry the flag for traditional methods; it's one of
the reasons why I read your posts. Lilli K. has some
special methods as well, and I wring every bit of
information from her posts for similar reasons.
But there are things you may admire in the world which
you might not wish to emulate. I used to have a
neighbor with a partially restored Model T. He took
it out for special events, and seeing him switch on
the gas, retard the spark, adjust the control, spin
the crank, run to the driver's seat as the car took
off, and and advanced the timing (or was it the other
way around?), and adjust the throttle all while
jumping into the compartment was a sight to see.
But most of us don't want to emulate that happy
fellow. I like to get in my car, snap on my seatbelt,
insert and turn a key, and then press a button to open
the garage door ...
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
*The word 'lore' is not pejorative. It's where
science begins, in fact. But you have to take the
processes from lore and isolate them and test them
repeatedly to get science out of it.
--- Lee Love wrote:
> Steve, I believe that Jonathon is protesting the
> "Glaze Orthodoxy" that
> has been festering on ClayArt since the publication
> and promotion of
> MC6G on this list.
>
> I am happy that there is a glaze gospel for the
> masses. But there are
> many other approaches, many of them not based on
> uniformity, and
> industrial methods.
>
Steve Slatin --
Some men will do here for diamonds what some men will do here for gold
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Vince Pitelka on mon 23 may 05
> Myself, I side with the Knight Hospitallers. I want to help people find
> their own way, not give them "the one true gospel" of clay. There is no
> life in dogma.
Dear Lee -
I believe that the implications in yours and many of the posts about MC6G
are unfair. The following is not some kind of personal adherence to the
concepts of MC6G, because I don't do cone 6 electric in my own work, and
it's not a significant part of my teaching program a the Craft Center.
However, their book does contain great material for people firing at any
temperature. John and Ron are not preaching "the one true gospel" of clay,
and in fact they have clearly stated that their advice applies only to
stable functional cone 6 glazes. Everyone agrees that people doing
non-functional vessels or sculpture can do whatever they want, with no
"rules" limiting the possibility of glaze color and surface.
Ron and John have done thorough research, and they came up with a glaze
system that does often work at cone 6 for many claybodies that have
appropriate expansion and absorption at that temperature. They are the
first ones to have publish such a book that presents this sort of common
sense technical information for electric kiln potters. This kind of book
was badly needed and sadly overdue, and John and Ron filled a niche that
needed to be filled. The fact that there has been such a widespread
response to their book and that people are taking it so seriously simply
affirms that there was a great need for such a book. When the market
responds in this fashion, it is a little strange to blame the authors.
If ten thousand people all start using the specific glazes in Ron and John's
book, then those glazes will become ubiquitous and will saturate the market,
and the work will become boring and common. That's the way the market
works, and those people will just get what they deserve. The best potters
will learn the theory, and will learn how to modify glazes and design their
own. Any serious potter is capable of doing the same kind of research and
development that Ron and John did, and the book should be seen only as a
starting point for a potter to use in developing their own stable of glazes
adapted to their own needs.
Anyone who thinks that blind adherence to the specific set of glazes
presented in Ron and John's book will provide their ticket to studio and
marketplace success is a damned fool. There is no easy way to studio and
marketplace success, and at the least it will require extensive research in
order to create a truly unique, personal body of work. Ron and John's book
provides a good "sample" palette of glazes plus plenty of very sound glaze
theory. That's a lot, but any serious potter is going to do a great deal of
work on their own to develop and modify glazes to fit their own needs.
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/
Elizabeth Priddy on tue 24 may 05
For instance, Minnesota Clay makes a line of clay and glazes that
always work well with each other. You know the glazes will fit because
they were designed to. For a beginning potter, buying both from a local
outfit that provided this type of service would allow you to focus on other
aspects of your development (which should include making glaze) while
getting up and running in terms of supporting yourself responsibly.
Elizabeth
Ron Roy wrote:
I think John has come up with a wonderful idea - find out what clay bodies
work with a certain group of glazes.
If you are an extra sensitive or easily offended type:
Remember that what I say is obviously just my opinion based
on my experiences and that I don't go around intending to step
on toes. Take it with a grain of salt and move along, there are
others waiting to give me grief.
Elizabeth Priddy*
252-504-2622
1273 Hwy 101
Beaufort, NC 28516
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
*If you are an extra-sensitive or easily-offended type:
Remember that what I say is obviously just my opinion based
on my experiences and that I, like most people, don't go around
intending to step on toes and make folks cry. Take it with a
grain of salt and move along, there are others waiting to
give me grief because of their own buttons I inadvertently
pushed...
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
Linda Ferzoco on tue 24 may 05
As a newcomer to clay, I bought the MC6G book.
It did not encourage me to replicate their glazes. It taught me how to make
a glaze, especially cone 6 glaze, safe for food use. It is based upon
results of many experiments. It encourages user experimentation.
It's not dogma; it's focus. Just food-safe glazes, cone 6.
Linda
Taylor from Rockport on tue 24 may 05
Howdy y'all:
Let's remember that MC6G does not qualify its glazes with the
phrases "food safe" or "safe for food". The book is very smart in what it
does do: _____________________. Fill in the blank if you've read it.
Then put down your Ron and John and pick up your Don Juan....er....Ohaus.
Linda is so right that this book can teach a bunch of stuff. I hope to
take that knowledge and run with it (not with scissors).
Taylor, in Rockport TX
On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:23:59 -0400, Linda Ferzoco
wrote:
...It taught me how to make
>a glaze, especially cone 6 glaze, safe for food use....
Sandy Henderson on tue 24 may 05
Please, I really think this is a non-issue. I very much doubt that the
majority of cone 6 potters, even on clayart, use MC6G glazes primarily
-- maybe not even at all. (I am not willing to do the work to find out,
though -- anybody wanna?) That says nothing about the earthenware,
cone 10 porcelain, wood-firing, macro-crystal glazing, and all the other
kinds of potters on clayart, or in the much larger world of ceramics. If
MC6G is an "orthodoxy" what about the orthodoxy of Whosits 5 x 20, or
shino, or . . . ?
Also, while there might be a bit of a fad for those particular glazes,
people will soon begin to tinker and change them, or move on to the
next "new" thing
Try to give cone 6 a bit of respect, and what do you get . . .
Sandy Henderson
lurking, learning, and loving MC6G but not exclusively
in NW Indiana where our local radio/tv stations are WLOI and WCOE.
(Until I discovered clayart, I wouldn't have known this was funny!)
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:40:27 +0900
> From: Lee Love
> Subject: Re: Revision:MC6G and Clay Body Testing-Sunday
>
> Steve Slatin wrote:
>
> >
> >Jonathan, I believe from some of your other posts that
> >you are experienced and knowledgeable. If you don't
> >like their approach --
> >
> Steve, I believe that Jonathon is protesting the "Glaze Orthodoxy"
> that has been festering on ClayArt since the publication and promotion
> of MC6G on this list.
| |
|
