mel jacobson on wed 13 sep 06
ok, just for instance.
compare:
a ron roy, well made, fired perfectly porcelain plate/cone 11.
now, that is dense, hard, can be used for three thousand years.
paper clay plate:
and remember, i said...loaded paper clay.
it would be full of millions of holes. swiss cheese times 30.
it would last i am sure a few years of wear and tear.
it just makes perfect sense. dense, fired `perfectly` porcelain will last
forever.
paper clay a few years.
i would never make a set of dishes from paper clay.
if you have a need to use paper clay because of very complex
structure...of course, use paper clay. why would anyone make
functional work from it? can you imagine a casserole from paper clay?
the liability is bad enough with solid clay.
mel
from: mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
website: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
Clayart page link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
Tom Sawyer on thu 14 sep 06
It may be in error to believe that a solid object is stronger that one
composed of tubes; the possibility exists that a column made of parallel
hollow tubing may be stronger that one that is solid; for example a solid
object may be more brittle that one with air spaces.
Tom Sawyer
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of mel jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:19 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: paper clay part two
ok, just for instance.
compare:
a ron roy, well made, fired perfectly porcelain plate/cone 11.
now, that is dense, hard, can be used for three thousand years.
paper clay plate:
and remember, i said...loaded paper clay.
it would be full of millions of holes. swiss cheese times 30.
it would last i am sure a few years of wear and tear.
it just makes perfect sense. dense, fired `perfectly` porcelain will last
forever.
paper clay a few years.
i would never make a set of dishes from paper clay.
if you have a need to use paper clay because of very complex
structure...of course, use paper clay. why would anyone make
functional work from it? can you imagine a casserole from paper clay?
the liability is bad enough with solid clay.
mel
from: mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
website: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
Clayart page link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Maurice Weitman on fri 15 sep 06
At 11:11 -0400 on 9/14/06, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>It may be in error to believe that a solid object is stronger that one
>composed of tubes; the possibility exists that a column made of parallel
>hollow tubing may be stronger that one that is solid; for example a solid
>object may be more brittle that one with air spaces.
Of course that's possible, Tom, and of course it's possible that
fired paper clay is as strong, or even stronger than "solid" clay.
(As I wrote earlier, since there are no standards for the composition
of paper clay, and since there's so much variability of other aspects
of firing, it'd be hard to quantify that.)
But I think there is a big difference in the relative structural
strengths of an object composed of tubes, parallel or otherwise, and
a solid object having many holes. And I resisted the temptation to
say "riddled with holes."
And not that I assumed that you were addressing my concerns which I
believe started this branch of the thread, but here is a part of my
post where I stated my "issues" with using paper clay for functional
work:
>I assume that the fired paperclay body can be vitreous, perhaps
>depending on the amount and type of paper used. But I've seen some
>paperclay pots, allegedly fired to the same cone as the same or
>similar body without paper, that at least had "issues" with their
>usability as functional pots exposed to significant water.
>
>So, by issues, I mean either because they were vessels containing
>liquids by their nature, or they were soaked in water in a sink or
>dishwasher, they "weeped" or absorbed too much water to be safely
>(alright, comfortably) microwaved.
>[...]
>I know there are millions of low-fired, highly absorptive pots used
>daily, and that esteemed potters like Linda Blossom use paperclay for
>sinks, forgodsake, but... my question remains: is it reasonable to
>use paperclay in functional ware or in cases where very low
>absorption (in a vitreous body) is needed?
I'd still like to know the answer to that (beyond a simple "it depends").
Thanks.
Regards,
Maurice, wondering what color Crocs, aprons, and boas we'll be
wearing to NCECA. (Thanks, S.M.)
Maurice Weitman on sun 17 sep 06
At 16:56 -0700 on 9/17/06, curtis adkins wrote:
>I am new so I need it explained in a different way, maybe.
>Therefore, please offer your opinion on how to get past the drying
>problems with slab building stoneware clay w/o using a paper
>inclusion...I don't get why you think p'clay is so terrible...is it
>a matter of that you would not try it because is different from your
>usual deal or are you saying that it is ONLY useful for
>non-functional pieces....sculpture and such. I was of the
>impression that if a piece was vitrified and the glaze was not
>pin-holed, blistered, crawling badly, or shivering that the pot was
>food, microwave, and dishwasher safe! Can you give me a definitive
>answer to this or is it just your personal preferences...teach me,
>or not!
Curtis,
I'm afraid you've misread or misunderstood my posts.
First, I am not qualified and in no position to offer ways to remedy
"drying problems with slab building stoneware" you mention. I don't
know your process or materials, and there are volumes written and
hours of video available that address proper methods.
While using paper clay will likely be more forgiving, surely millions
of pieces have been successfully made without it. If I were doing
sculptural work, I would probably choose to use it. But I make
functional pots, and I have concerns about that.
That's why, in both my posts of the last week, I sought answers to my
question "Is paperclay suitable for use in functional pots?"
I have said (in my clayart post of 9/12) "I love how wonderful
paperclay is to work with, how strong it is, how
forgiving, how easy it is to join and repair parts." It's truly amazing.
Nowhere have I said that "p'clay is so terrible." I did say, in both
my message which you quoted, and my previous post, that my "issues"
with using paper clay concern its use in functional pots meant to
hold liquids or exposed to enough liquid in their cleaning processes
to allow enough absorption to cause subsequent problems.
As for your definition of ware that is "food, microwave, and
dishwasher safe," I would say that there are other criteria,
including leaching of nasties from poorly-crafted glazes, and
possibly (thus MY question) the issue of an absorptive pot getting
too hot in a microwave.
So, I regret that I cannot give you the "definitive answer" you
request, for I have none. Let me know if you find the answer,
though; I remain interested in learning, too.
Regards,
Maurice
curtis adkins on sun 17 sep 06
So, Maury,
I am new so I need it explained in a different way, maybe.
Therefore, please offer your opinion on how to get past the drying problems with slab building stoneware clay w/o using a paper inclusion...I don't get why you think p'clay is so terrible...is it a matter of that you would not try it because is different from your usual deal or are you saying that it is ONLY useful for non-functional pieces....sculpture and such. I was of the impression that if a piece was vitrified and the glaze was not pin-holed, blistered, crawling badly, or shivering that the pot was food, microwave, and dishwasher safe! Can you give me a definitive answer to this or is it just your personal preferences...teach me, or not! I have been using amaco x15 with the recipe at this link
Curtis "Monk" Adkins
Maurice Weitman wrote: At 11:11 -0400 on 9/14/06, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>It may be in error to believe that a solid object is stronger that one
>composed of tubes; the possibility exists that a column made of parallel
>hollow tubing may be stronger that one that is solid; for example a solid
>object may be more brittle that one with air spaces.
Of course that's possible, Tom, and of course it's possible that
fired paper clay is as strong, or even stronger than "solid" clay.
(As I wrote earlier, since there are no standards for the composition
of paper clay, and since there's so much variability of other aspects
of firing, it'd be hard to quantify that.)
But I think there is a big difference in the relative structural
strengths of an object composed of tubes, parallel or otherwise, and
a solid object having many holes. And I resisted the temptation to
say "riddled with holes."
And not that I assumed that you were addressing my concerns which I
believe started this branch of the thread, but here is a part of my
post where I stated my "issues" with using paper clay for functional
work:
>I assume that the fired paperclay body can be vitreous, perhaps
>depending on the amount and type of paper used. But I've seen some
>paperclay pots, allegedly fired to the same cone as the same or
>similar body without paper, that at least had "issues" with their
>usability as functional pots exposed to significant water.
>
>So, by issues, I mean either because they were vessels containing
>liquids by their nature, or they were soaked in water in a sink or
>dishwasher, they "weeped" or absorbed too much water to be safely
>(alright, comfortably) microwaved.
>[...]
>I know there are millions of low-fired, highly absorptive pots used
>daily, and that esteemed potters like Linda Blossom use paperclay for
>sinks, forgodsake, but... my question remains: is it reasonable to
>use paperclay in functional ware or in cases where very low
>absorption (in a vitreous body) is needed?
I'd still like to know the answer to that (beyond a simple "it depends").
Thanks.
Regards,
Maurice, wondering what color Crocs, aprons, and boas we'll be
wearing to NCECA. (Thanks, S.M.)
______________________________________________________________________________
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.
Craig Clark on sun 17 sep 06
I have used a goodly amount of paper clay for scultptural purposes.
I am still amazed by the manner in which one is able to work with the
addition of something as simple as cellulose fiber to a clay body. Long
live Rosette Gault and Linda Blossom (who was the first professional
that I saw using paper clay and will remain forever greatful.)
The question concerning functionality in a food service type of
application is a good one from my perspective. Even if there are a
number of folks out there who have used paper clay for this type of
purpose there will not be any sort of substantive info to come from the
discussion beyond speculation unless there is series of tests run on a
before/after kinda basis. One clay body at a time, before and after the
addition of paper, on a side by side comparison. A similar type of
testing would need to be done with the glazes that are to be used with
the bodies as well. Tests would be done for % of shrinkage, absorption,
durability, strength, etc. The lack of any sort of standard neccesitates
this type of comparison if answers to the questions are to go beyond
that of the anecdotal. Anything less amounts to speculation. The method
that Ron and John lay out in their book is a good one to follow.
For the record, I absolutely love paper clay. I have seen it do
incredible things. I have gone so far as to apply paper clay to an
already bisqued form, made from another clay body, that had a crack
right down the seam of a cylindrical extrusion. I did it because I was
an non-believer and really wanted to put the stuff to the test. I was
blown away. It worked. I did it again it other circumstances with the
application of fresh p-clay slip to crack in pots and other forms that
had been bisqued. Worked every time. I call it magic clay. I try and
keep folks who are just starting out away from the stuff. Don't think a
beginner will ever the learn the proper care and feeding of clay if they
start out with the cellulous fix.
Hope this helps
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
curtis adkins wrote:
> So, Maury,
>
> I am new so I need it explained in a different way, maybe.
> Therefore, please offer your opinion on how to get past the drying problems with slab building stoneware clay w/o using a paper inclusion...I don't get why you think p'clay is so terrible...is it a matter of that you would not try it because is different from your usual deal or are you saying that it is ONLY useful for non-functional pieces....sculpture and such. I was of the impression that if a piece was vitrified and the glaze was not pin-holed, blistered, crawling badly, or shivering that the pot was food, microwave, and dishwasher safe! Can you give me a definitive answer to this or is it just your personal preferences...teach me, or not! I have been using amaco x15 with the recipe at this link
>
> Curtis "Monk" Adkins
> Maurice Weitman wrote: At 11:11 -0400 on 9/14/06, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>
>> It may be in error to believe that a solid object is stronger that one
>> composed of tubes; the possibility exists that a column made of parallel
>> hollow tubing may be stronger that one that is solid; for example a solid
>> object may be more brittle that one with air spaces.
>>
>
> Of course that's possible, Tom, and of course it's possible that
> fired paper clay is as strong, or even stronger than "solid" clay.
> (As I wrote earlier, since there are no standards for the composition
> of paper clay, and since there's so much variability of other aspects
> of firing, it'd be hard to quantify that.)
>
> But I think there is a big difference in the relative structural
> strengths of an object composed of tubes, parallel or otherwise, and
> a solid object having many holes. And I resisted the temptation to
> say "riddled with holes."
>
> And not that I assumed that you were addressing my concerns which I
> believe started this branch of the thread, but here is a part of my
> post where I stated my "issues" with using paper clay for functional
> work:
>
>
>> I assume that the fired paperclay body can be vitreous, perhaps
>> depending on the amount and type of paper used. But I've seen some
>> paperclay pots, allegedly fired to the same cone as the same or
>> similar body without paper, that at least had "issues" with their
>> usability as functional pots exposed to significant water.
>>
>> So, by issues, I mean either because they were vessels containing
>> liquids by their nature, or they were soaked in water in a sink or
>> dishwasher, they "weeped" or absorbed too much water to be safely
>> (alright, comfortably) microwaved.
>> [...]
>> I know there are millions of low-fired, highly absorptive pots used
>> daily, and that esteemed potters like Linda Blossom use paperclay for
>> sinks, forgodsake, but... my question remains: is it reasonable to
>> use paperclay in functional ware or in cases where very low
>> absorption (in a vitreous body) is needed?
>>
>
> I'd still like to know the answer to that (beyond a simple "it depends").
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Maurice, wondering what color Crocs, aprons, and boas we'll be
> wearing to NCECA. (Thanks, S.M.)
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
| |
|
