Rikki Gill on sat 20 may 06
Hi Alisa,
I knew that this was a can of worms.
I love the depth of color that cone ten can give one if the kiln is fired in
a manner that enhances the glaze,
or decorative slips. [This is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Totally
subjective.]
As Lee pointed out, Linda Arbuckle's work is beautiful, and she low fires.
It is true that a good artist will create
beautiful work however it is made. My feeling is that a beautiful glaze can
enhance the work of a good artist that
chooses to use those glazes and slips as a palette. And whose painting
style fits it.
I didn't say anything is an absolute. Lee is right, they are different. I
don't mean to imply there is one true way,
but to me the patience that one employs reduction firing pays off in color
beyond the usual. The color slips and glazes
I use to decorate, are made of ordinary materials that will change in a
reduction atmosphere.
Crystalline glazes do the same thing, and they can be electric fired. I
have never used them, but I know they can be gorgeous.
What I have always looked for is a way to use glaze to paint compositions.
I did do that at cone 6. My work leaned more to
graphic decorations. At cone 11, I can do abstract work more easily. That
is where my heart is.
I had no intention to denigrate anyone else's work. I have lived in many
places, Mexico, India, Italy, and visited many more.
I am always fascinated by ceramics, and the different ways people have found
to create pots. Ceramics are the love of my life,
and my joy is firing a kiln. The sight of flames in iridescent colors is a
total addiction.
Okay, so I am a little crazy. Ababi called himself a glaze addict, I am a
pyromaniac.
Best, Rikki
www.rikkigillceramics.com
I have reprinted Alisa's message in full so you all can follow her thoughts.
Rikki
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alisa Liskin Clausen"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: NCECA 2007 cone 10 or less
> Rikki Gill wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> The reason people fire to cone ten and higher is because it is
>
>>beautiful [if
>
>>> you do it right]. And as nice as lower temps can look, it is not
>
>>the same.
>
>>> I have done both.
>
>
> Lee Love wrote:
>
> Rikki,
>> I disagree. They are just "different."
>
>
>
> Alisa writes,
>
> I am glad that Lee wrote the above.
>
> Dear Rikki,
>
> I interpreted what you wrote as meaning that cone 10 or higher is
> beautiful
> and better than anything fired lower, in your opinion. Only if you fire
> it
> right?
>
> I could be totally misreading your intentions of these comments, but as I
> read them, it says to me that you prefer cone 10 which is all right. But
> I
> do not know what fired right means? My personal opinion is that I do not
> think anything that is not Cone 10, is trying to wear Cone 10's sheep
> skin.
> There are instances when people want to imitate at Shino, wood ash, etc.
> at
> lower temps., and that is also OK. Perhaps that is their limitation, or
> their challenge they wish to meet.
>
>
>
> This is not at all intended to support cone 6, because that is what I
> happen
> to fire at the moment. It is intended to try to open up and find beauty
> in
> many, many processes, fired in many types of kilns. Culture plays a great
> deal in our perceptions of beauty, but meeting and meshing cultures can
> open
> the eye to vast amount of examples of pleasing and saturated sensations by
> understanding what makes a pot beautiful to a specific culture (synonymous
> with their processes).
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards from Alisa in Denmark
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/334 - Release Date: 5/8/2006
>
>
Alisa Liskin Clausen on sun 21 may 06
Rikki Gill wrote:
>>
>> The reason people fire to cone ten and higher is because it is
>beautiful [if
>> you do it right]. And as nice as lower temps can look, it is not
>the same.
>> I have done both.
>>
>
Lee Love wrote:
Rikki,
>
> I disagree. They are just "different."
Alisa writes,
I am glad that Lee wrote the above.
Dear Rikki,
I interpreted what you wrote as meaning that cone 10 or higher is beautiful
and better than anything fired lower, in your opinion. Only if you fire it
right?
I could be totally misreading your intentions of these comments, but as I
read them, it says to me that you prefer cone 10 which is all right. But I
do not know what fired right means? My personal opinion is that I do not
think anything that is not Cone 10, is trying to wear Cone 10's sheep skin.
There are instances when people want to imitate at Shino, wood ash, etc. at
lower temps., and that is also OK. Perhaps that is their limitation, or
their challenge they wish to meet.
This is not at all intended to support cone 6, because that is what I happen
to fire at the moment. It is intended to try to open up and find beauty in
many, many processes, fired in many types of kilns. Culture plays a great
deal in our perceptions of beauty, but meeting and meshing cultures can open
the eye to vast amount of examples of pleasing and saturated sensations by
understanding what makes a pot beautiful to a specific culture (synonymous
with their processes).
Best regards from Alisa in Denmark
| |
|
