Lee Love on wed 20 sep 06
On 9/20/06, mel jacobson wrote:
> there is an old story of a north carolina potter:
>
> six rock measure is ok. it is consistent.
Mel,
Many folks in our time are so biased toward our modern
industrial system, that they cannot recognize that the traditional
methods were empirical and created safe and long lasting glazes too.
When you work with potter's materials and do not have analysis
of the materials, testing rather than calculation is the most
effective method.
What people don't seem to understand, is when you take your
first step toward total control, everthing else you do is dictated by
that decision. You really cut off many possiblities.
My approach is one of discovery, rather than control. We
can't all do it the same way. We need to figure out what works for
us best.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
mel jacobson on wed 20 sep 06
there is an old story of a north carolina potter:
interviewer asks, `what's in that brown glaze`.
he says ` three pails of swamp fixin`s and two pails
of feldspar.` makes for a good glaze.
and, it was. easy measure.
not a gram scale in the entire county.
there was a scale. it was a balance/wooden beam bucket, with rocks in
it. you add materials til the rock bucket moves.
take out a rock, add a rock. they were mostly the same size. a good
six rock measure is ok. it is consistent.
there is the great line from my days in japan.
mel `these handles are hard to make`.
uchida.
`make 5000 and they get real easy.`
and i did...and it was really easy after 10,000.
just whizzzz along.
experience, knowledge of materials, and a good dose of
`seat of the pants` trying. no super tools, just clay, your
hands and some water. always the best way.
often we spend more time setting up tricky tools than we
would ever do with experienced hands.
how did the sung dynesty potters do it without `insight`, computers
oxyprobes? trusted experience with what they had.
nothing can substitute for that.
making simple glazes that melt is not that big a deal.
and, what the hell is wrong with having a tiny bit
of variation from one firing to the next...hell, a great many
of us want it...desire it...work towards it. hell, i love
grog, sand, taconite crumbs...who could ever find a
pin hole in that mess. a pin hole on a white platter looks
like a zit on a girl before the prom.
i don't want my pots to look like they were purchased at
`the pottery barn.` i want that variation/.
but, that is just me. mel
god, a program with 5000 glaze recipes...hell, it would
take a thousand years to learn what 10 of them could do.
from: mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
website: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
Clayart page link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
John and Judy Hesselberth on wed 20 sep 06
On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:18 PM, mel jacobson wrote:
> i don't want my pots to look like they were purchased at
> `the pottery barn.` i want that variation/.
> but, that is just me. mel
Hi Mel,
Nothing wrong with a little variation as long as it's variation from
a stable midpoint. I, for one, am sick of seeing glazes that fade or
stain after use with coffee for a year or so. And I'm tired of seeing
glazes published and shown on functional work that were formulated by
people with your attitude. And if you haven't seen any--well you
haven't been looking. The sort of casualness you are supporting is
what has resulted in lots of horrible glazes being put on functional
work. That gives all of us a bad name in the eyes of the purchasing
public.
Now if you are making sculptural work, fine--put any surface
treatment on it you like. But if you are making functional work how
about supporting craftsmanship instead of slopmanship? Attractive
glazes that are stable are quite easy to make with a little knowledge
and care. Anybody with a little knowledge who cares can make
attractive glazes that won't be mistaken for commercial crap and will
be stable. I''m frankly surprised at your attitude. I thought you
stood for a high level of craftsmanship, but I am getting a
distinctly different view with your recent posts.
Regards,
John
Robert Edney on wed 20 sep 06
I love Clayart -- I really do. Just last night I had to come up with a
substitution for spodumene (which we'd run out of) to make a raku glaze for
a firing. Yup, I found it in the archives. However, Mel's post is well
taken. Sometimes too much information can bring the spirit of the work to a
dead stop. And it's true about clay/glaze combinations. One clay body and
ten or so glazes presents a nearly infinite variety of possible effects. I
have glazes that change dramatically based on thickness of application, or a
minimal variation in temperature or reduction -- so much so that the results
may look like two entirely different glazes. It's well worth reading Mel's
post and remembering the all too true notion of keeping it simple. On the
other hand, I love all the conversation about the technical intricacies of
things, so long as we keep things in perspective. Being something of a
technophile myself I am guilty of both interest and participation -- but
there are definitely times when I'd be better off sitting down and throwing
a pot than messing about with the gram scale.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of mel jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:19 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: wet measure/makin handles
there is an old story of a north carolina potter:
interviewer asks, `what's in that brown glaze`.
he says ` three pails of swamp fixin`s and two pails
of feldspar.` makes for a good glaze.
and, it was. easy measure.
not a gram scale in the entire county.
there was a scale. it was a balance/wooden beam bucket, with rocks in
it. you add materials til the rock bucket moves.
take out a rock, add a rock. they were mostly the same size. a good
six rock measure is ok. it is consistent.
there is the great line from my days in japan.
mel `these handles are hard to make`.
uchida.
`make 5000 and they get real easy.`
and i did...and it was really easy after 10,000.
just whizzzz along.
experience, knowledge of materials, and a good dose of
`seat of the pants` trying. no super tools, just clay, your
hands and some water. always the best way.
often we spend more time setting up tricky tools than we
would ever do with experienced hands.
how did the sung dynesty potters do it without `insight`, computers
oxyprobes? trusted experience with what they had.
nothing can substitute for that.
making simple glazes that melt is not that big a deal.
and, what the hell is wrong with having a tiny bit
of variation from one firing to the next...hell, a great many
of us want it...desire it...work towards it. hell, i love
grog, sand, taconite crumbs...who could ever find a
pin hole in that mess. a pin hole on a white platter looks
like a zit on a girl before the prom.
i don't want my pots to look like they were purchased at
`the pottery barn.` i want that variation/.
but, that is just me. mel
god, a program with 5000 glaze recipes...hell, it would
take a thousand years to learn what 10 of them could do.
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.
Tony Ferguson on wed 20 sep 06
Mel,
From one passionate person to another: I am reminded of the old adage: don't knock it tell you try it. Now I am not sure why you are criticizing glaze chemistry or the desire for mastery or methodology (however someone may approach it) [and slipping in some crit on handle tools after I made my post] and the like but a glaze program with 5000 recipes--have you looked at any of the programs yourself? I don't know a single person that has 5000 let alone 500 recipes in their data base. Now our departed Ababi sent me his data base and what was really wonderful about it was I was able to look at his recipes, think about what materials he used, maybe why he did what he did and analyze them (with my limited knowledge), see how he handled certain proporations or relationships, etc. I am not a galze guru but I can look at glazes and see proporation of certain elements to one another.
And like John, I adamantly support good craftsmenship with glazes that perform. Glaze chemistry in its crudest or highest current evolution is simply information. It is what you do or don't do with it that will affect your aesthetic. If want to get knitty, then your philosophy would have you hand buidling all your work as the hand or kick wheel was a modernization/innovation from making works soley with the hands that was an improvement that aided the process. Someone had an idea that improved the process and final aesthetic of the work. This idea, the potter's wheel, also opened up new ways in which to make a vessel form and offered things not possible making work in the traditional "hands" only way.
You having taught K-12, I find your attitude very anti-intellectual, anti-experimental and anti-innovation. Are these not tools of potential creativity? Please don't knock something till you try it. There is nothing super about my tool or any other tool that may threaten the traditionalists out there. As my mommy always said, "It's how you use the tools" that makes the man. And by the way. People can talk about how experienced they are, what they did on Jupiter or any where else, years of experience, blah blah blah. The proof is in the work and its performance. Nuff said.
Tony Ferguson
mel jacobson wrote:
there is an old story of a north carolina potter:
interviewer asks, `what's in that brown glaze`.
he says ` three pails of swamp fixin`s and two pails
of feldspar.` makes for a good glaze.
and, it was. easy measure.
not a gram scale in the entire county.
there was a scale. it was a balance/wooden beam bucket, with rocks in
it. you add materials til the rock bucket moves.
take out a rock, add a rock. they were mostly the same size. a good
six rock measure is ok. it is consistent.
there is the great line from my days in japan.
mel `these handles are hard to make`.
uchida.
`make 5000 and they get real easy.`
and i did...and it was really easy after 10,000.
just whizzzz along.
experience, knowledge of materials, and a good dose of
`seat of the pants` trying. no super tools, just clay, your
hands and some water. always the best way.
often we spend more time setting up tricky tools than we
would ever do with experienced hands.
how did the sung dynesty potters do it without `insight`, computers
oxyprobes? trusted experience with what they had.
nothing can substitute for that.
making simple glazes that melt is not that big a deal.
and, what the hell is wrong with having a tiny bit
of variation from one firing to the next...hell, a great many
of us want it...desire it...work towards it. hell, i love
grog, sand, taconite crumbs...who could ever find a
pin hole in that mess. a pin hole on a white platter looks
like a zit on a girl before the prom.
i don't want my pots to look like they were purchased at
`the pottery barn.` i want that variation/.
but, that is just me. mel
god, a program with 5000 glaze recipes...hell, it would
take a thousand years to learn what 10 of them could do.
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.
Tony Ferguson
...where the sky meets the lake...
Duluth, Minnesota
Artist, Educator, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
fergy@cpinternet.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.aquariusartgallery.com
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
Tony Coroli on thu 21 sep 06
Hi Lee
Some of your comments have been useful but some others have been in error.
=93Many folks in our time are so biased toward our modern industrial system,=
that they cannot recognize that the traditional methods were empirical and
created safe and long lasting glazes too=94 True to a point but some
traditional glazes were very much unsafe
=93Anybody who knows the traditional way of testing glaze thickness knows
that the scratch test is superior to measuring specific gravity=94
Measuring glaze thickness by scoring or scratching is not simply
traditional. The thickness of an applied glaze layer can only be determined
by actually measured it, and this would require a clear cross section as
would result from scoring through
Measuring specific gravity is just that: a measure of the specific gravity.
It does not measure glaze thickness, and I have never heard any suggest
this.
The thickness of a glaze layer is influenced by a number of factors
including: solids contents of the glaze suspension, viscosity of the glaze
suspension, permeability of the article, method of application, time of the
article is submerged if dipping is used. And whilst some people the use
specific gravity of a glaze suspension to gauge the water and solids
contents it is actually a poor method for this
Tony
Lee Love on thu 21 sep 06
On 9/21/06, Tony Coroli wrote:
> Hi Lee
>
> Some of your comments have been useful but some others have been in error.
>
I am not the Pope. But you point out no "errors" in my post.
You simply make presumptions. I can elaborate on anything you need
to know more about.
> "Many folks in our time are so biased toward our modern industrial system,
> that they cannot recognize that the traditional methods were empirical and
> created safe and long lasting glazes too" True to a point but some
> traditional glazes were very much unsafe
Some tradtional glazes used potentially hazardous materials, mostly
lower temp glazes. But most high fire glazes in Asia (the ones I work
in) are made only of clay, feldspar and ash.
> contents it is actually a poor method for this
Glad you agree. Mister Miyagi say, "Best way to know glaze
thickness is measure glaze thickness." DOH!
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Ron Roy on fri 22 sep 06
The idea that calculating glazes and clay limits anything is simply not
true.
What limits people is not their tools but their minds.
Show me a potter that wants variation and I'll show you one that
prefers some kinds of variation over others.
Understanding the materials and techniques you work with enhances your
ability to get the kinds of variations you prefer.
RR
Lee Love on fri 22 sep 06
The idea that process does not effect the eventual work is
nonsense. If you are strictly dependent on calculation, then you
cannot use materials that are not industrially standardized. You end
up only using industrially refined materials.
I frequently use calculation, usually after empirical
testing, to see why something turned out the way it did. I will
also use glaze calculation to substitute synthetic materials for
natural ones, so I can isolate on a single variable material.
With my standard ash glaze, if something unexpected
happens, I will test with synthetic ash. If the outcome is the
same, I know I have different amakusa or there is a change in my ball
clay. This is how I figured out the yellow color in my last batch
was due to the new (non-industrial) ball clay.
Fundamentalism of all sorts suck. There is no "one true way"
in clay. You have figure our what works best for you, to get the
results you hope to see.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Tony Coroli on fri 22 sep 06
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:37:13 -0700, Lee Love wrote:
>On 9/21/06, Tony Coroli wrote:
>> Hi Lee
>>
>> Some of your comments have been useful but some others have been in
error.
>>
>
> I am not the Pope. But you point out no "errors" in my post.
>You simply make presumptions. I can elaborate on anything you need
>to know more about.
>
>> "Many folks in our time are so biased toward our modern industrial
system,
>> that they cannot recognize that the traditional methods were empirical
and
>> created safe and long lasting glazes too" True to a point but some
>> traditional glazes were very much unsafe
>
>Some tradtional glazes used potentially hazardous materials, mostly
>lower temp glazes. But most high fire glazes in Asia (the ones I work
>in) are made only of clay, feldspar and ash.
>
>> contents it is actually a poor method for this
>
>Glad you agree. Mister Miyagi say, "Best way to know glaze
>thickness is measure glaze thickness." DOH!
>--
>
>Lee in Mashiko, Japan
>http://potters.blogspot.com/
>"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>
>___________________________________________________________________________=
___
>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.
Lee,
I have no wish to argue so I hope you are actually less confrontational
than your reply suggested.
I made no presumptions in my message but you did make errors.
You made an absolute and definitive statement with =91traditional methods
were empirical and created safe and long lasting glazes=92 This is simply no=
t
correct as some were unsafe.
The designation of scratching a glaze layer to allow thickness measurement
as traditional is at best an over simplification as the direct measurement
of a cross section is the only way.
You may use glazes made only of clay, feldspar and ash but not all
traditional glazes are / were, and not all traditional glazes are Asian.
And to confirm my comment about specific gravity was regarding its the
unsuitability to determine water and solids content. The measurement of the
water / content of a glaze suspension allows these to be modified, and this
permits one variable influencing glaze thickness to be controlled but,
there are other variables. Measuring specific gravity is not a measure of
glaze thickness itself, and you are the only person I have ever heard
discuss the merits of specific gravity for glaze thickness measurement.
Tony
Lee Love on fri 22 sep 06
On 9/22/06, Tony Coroli wrote:
>I have no wish to argue so I hope you are actually less confrontational
>than your reply suggested
Me neither and nor you I. ;^).
But, you could introduce yourself. Do you make pottery?
These are your first posts. You are speaking with great authority
and we don't know you from "Adam's Off Ox."
You can see my work here:
http://potters.blogspot.com/
>I made no presumptions in my message but you did make errors.
Of course, you did make presumptions. If you did not want to be
confrontational, you would have asked for clairification.
Most of the high fire traditional glazes are just ash, clay
and feldspar. If you don't put poision in the glazes, it can't leach
out. Over time, by traditional methods, potters found glazes that
were durable but were flexible enough to match the wide range of
temperatures found in large noborigama kilns.
> The designation of scratching a glaze layer to allow thickness measurement
> as traditional is at best an over simplification as the direct measurement
> of a cross section is the only way.
An experienced eye is accurate in judging the thickness of the
glaze application. I have written about this before. With the kind
of glazing I do, over inlay like my teacher's, glaze thickness is
very important. At my teacher's workshop, the glaze was adjusted
according to the type of pottery being glazed.
Here is something I wrote about it a while ago relating to
apprenticing at Shimaoka's here in Mashiko:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we don't accept modernism as the new magic, we should accept tools
based upon them working or not, and not just because they are new.
As I have mentioned previously, during my apprenticeship, when I could
not judge glaze thickness simply by scratching it and looking at the
actual depth, I could not understand why my Sensei/teacher and the
shokunin/craftsman wasted their time making so many scratch test. I
thought they should just use a hygrometer.
It wasn't until I trained my eye, after watching 6 months of glazes
test (I had the good luck of being the bisque sponger, so I sat next
to the glazing Shokunin and Sensei), and I could guess if the Shokunin
and/or Sensei would judge the glaze was okay or too thick, that I
understood that testing could be accurately done this way. It always
went from thick to thin glaze, which corresponds with thin to thick
ware, because it is very easy to thin a glaze by adding water.
Thickening a glaze requires more mixing, because the thick glaze you
add takes more work to disperse.
After more time passed, I realized that specific gravity was not the
only variable the determined glaze thickness. Other things like the
relative softness of the bisque or the humidity in the air or even the
barometric pressure can effect the thickness of the glaze on the pot.
They hygrometer does not that these variables into account.
So, don't fall prey to modernist superstitious belief. Only accept
tools and methods because they work. Not because they are new or old.
Because of an over reliance upon electronic gauges, we are loosing our
ability to discern with our eyes and hands.
I was never very sensitive to glaze application thickness before my
apprenticeship. But Sensei's ash glaze and inlay were very sensitive
to the thickness of the glaze. Too thick and the iron body breaks too
dark. Too thick and the glaze obscures the inlay decoration.
>
> You may use glazes made only of clay, feldspar and ash but not all
> traditional glazes are / were, and not all traditional glazes are Asian.
Bingo! I think you understand.
> And to confirm my comment about specific gravity was regarding its the
> unsuitability to determine water and solids content. The measurement of the
> water / content of a glaze suspension allows these to be modified, and this
> permits one variable influencing glaze thickness to be controlled but,
> there are other variables. Measuring specific gravity is not a measure of
> glaze thickness itself, and you are the only person I have ever heard
> discuss the merits of specific gravity for glaze thickness measurement.
This is my argument exactly.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Steve Slatin on fri 22 sep 06
Now there you go again, Lee.
Demanding that other people provide you with a sample
of their work is:
1. Confrontational
2. Obnoxious
(Please note I am not saying that YOU are confrontational
or obnoxious. Only that this BEHAVIOR is confrontational
and obnoxious.)
Also, it is:
3. Irrelevant
(Tony's work -- whether amateurish or transcendent
-- would not establish or disprove the truth or the falsehood of
what he has said.)
And as for presumptions; well, you make a goodly number
yourself. This most recent flurry of posts from you was set
off by a post that didn't in any way dispute what you
repeatly claim as the better way to do our work. Perhaps it
is time to look within?
(Note that the last sentence is a question and not an allegation
or imputation.)
The last insulting message you posted to me I just ignored.
I don't find correcting your inaccuracies sufficiently interesting
or rewarding to do solely for myself. I do object to your
attacks on other people, though. I've gotten many, many
messages from lurkers saying they won't post here for fear
that you'll heap abuse on them. I'd hate to see you start
with Tony, who has been measured, reasonable, and fair
in his postings so far.
-- Steve Slatin
Lee Love wrote:
On 9/22/06, Tony Coroli wrote:
>I have no wish to argue so I hope you are actually less confrontational
>than your reply suggested
Me neither and nor you I. ;^).
But, you could introduce yourself. Do you make pottery?
These are your first posts. You are speaking with great authority
and we don't know you from "Adam's Off Ox."
You can see my work here:
http://potters.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Tony Coroli on fri 22 sep 06
Hi Lee
=91But, you could introduce yourself. Do you make pottery? These are your
first posts. You are speaking with great authority and we don't know you
from "Adam's Off Ox."
Yes it was my first post, I happened across the website whilst surfing. I
was not aware of any policy about formal introductions or presenting a
resume, I thought it was an open environment. I am experienced in pottery
but in public arenas tend towards discretion and restraint about myself. I
see no value in shouting about myself or my work.
I replied because you made absolute statements that were incorrect. I
thought if I found thess during surfing that beginners could also, and they
would be mislead by your statements.
Again I note I did not, and still do not want, to be confrontational
although I worry this discourse is slipping towards it
I was not being presumptuous, my reply addressed your comments only. It is
ironic that you make such an accusation as the only presumption has been
from yourself when you assumed knowledge of my intentions when you said =91I=
f
you did not want to be confrontational, you would have asked for
clairification.=92
I would not like to misunderstand your comments but regarding =91Over time,
by traditional methods, potters found glazes that were durable but were
flexible enough to match the wide range of temperatures found in large
noborigama kilns.=92 This is a very large oversimplification, as noborigama
are one type of kiln, and just as I noted earlier that =91not all traditiona=
l
glazes are Asian=92, then not all traditional kilns were noborigama.
Traditions extend beyond Asia, and even within the continent beyond the
areas where noborigama were used
Saying =91If you don't put poision in the glazes, it can't leach out.=92 is
correct, but only up to a point. I would not use the word poison, but what
about the harmful substances that naturally occur in some materials? For
example some clays can be have high amounts of harmful elements and
compounds such as arsenic, chromium, and dioxins. Presuming that materials
pose no health risks just because they are naturally occuring overlooks
proven health risks.
You are correct to suggest =91it is very easy to thin a glaze by adding
water=92. But adding water to a glaze suspension alters two variables,
viscosity AND solids content. More selective modification is achieved by
the use of water, a deflocculant and a flocculant
It is good that you =91 realized that specific gravity was not the only
variable the determined glaze thickness.=92 But who has suggested it is?
Tony
Vince Pitelka on fri 22 sep 06
Lee wrote:
> Fundamentalism of all sorts suck. There is no "one true way"
> in clay. You have to figure our what works best for you, to get the
> results you hope to see.
Truer words were never spoken, and if cultures across the world would
listen, then it would be a far better world. Absolute, inflexible dogma is
by nature self-defeating - invariably a dead-end.
But here's an absolute statement I can live with: In art/craft, there is no
substitute for thoroughness and craftsmanship. Carelessness in methods
breeds shabby results. In this case, I think that Mel's statements are
misleading, and in fact there is far more care and accuracy in his methods
than his posts indicate. Obviously, John and Ron take a more quantitative,
scientific approach, but the two methods are more compatible than either
party is willing to admit right now, and that is a shame. An empirical,
"seat-of-the-pants" approach such as Mel has practiced over time builds an
intuitive feeling for materials that can serve the potter very well, while
an obsessively quantitative, scientific approach can deny that possibility.
I am not saying that Ron or John are guilty of the latter, because I think
the world of both of them and their huge contribution to this discussion
list. Obviously the potter needs to control the materials in her/his clay
and glazes accurately, and before developing the kind of intuitive approach
that Mel practices, it is always necessary to measure carefully and record
one's recipes and results.
- 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/
Pam Cresswell on sat 23 sep 06
Shhh, this is a secret, but Mel sometimes tosses out statements he knows
will stir up insightful dialogs. He is not just a good host for the list
taking care of the behind the screen tech stuff, but he works at getting us
thinking and talking/writing. When I read folks all aghast, saying "Mel, how
can you say such a thing??" I picture him chuckling to himself over a job
well done, he got us again.
Pam, in KC, prepping to head out to the Unplaza Art Fair, where several
friends are set up, and I can see some of the work I helped fire at the
guild find happy new homes, that is if the rain stays away.....
Lee Love on sat 23 sep 06
On 9/22/06, Vince Pitelka wrote:
.
>
> Truer words were never spoken, and if cultures across the world would
> listen, then it would be a far better world. Absolute, inflexible dogma is
> by nature self-defeating - invariably a dead-end.
We agree: an open and flexible mind is the creative
person's most important tool.
> party is willing to admit right now, and that is a shame. An empirical,
> "seat-of-the-pants" approach such as Mel has practiced over time builds an
> intuitive feeling for materials that can serve the potter very well, while
> an obsessively quantitative, scientific approach can deny that possibility.
There is a third way. It is what got me into the
discussion. The traditional empirical method is anything but "seat
of the pants." Wet ladel is very accurate and careful The focus
is more qualitative, but it is also quantitative. The
traditional potter was not sloppy, lazy or stupid. If anything,
especially the potters like the ones here in Mashiko who were also
farmers, were more well rounded, better in touch with their natural
surroundings, and less fragmented than the modern person.
It is "another tool" that can handle materials that are
not as well handled by chemical analysis, because it deals with
materials that are not industral and not uniformed and cannot be
anaylised accurately.
The traditional method of exploring and mixing glazes
that I have experience in, can produce safe and durable glazes.
Certainly, not all tradtional glazes are safe and durable, but it is
not because the method is faulty. The big advantage of the
traditional method, beyond being the best way to deal with natural
matierals, is the hundreds of years of testing we can look back on.
A screw driver does negate the usefulness of a hammer or
pliers. You want each of these in your tool box.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Ron Roy on tue 3 oct 06
This is not about rigidity - it's about learning and knowing as much as
is necessary about the clays and glazes we use so we can use them in
appropriate ways.
Knowing our craft is not automatically limiting - exactly the opposite
is true.
If we choose not to learn how to use a tool - for whatever reason -
there is absolutely no reason to condemn it's use by others. In the end
it is the work that counts - not only the way it looks - but how it
functions and lasts. To say that the way we work is good enough seems
equally silly - we are all learning and growing - some slower and some
faster - but we are all growing. That is as it should be in spite of
those who say it is not so.
RR
On 22-Sep-06, at 8:30 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> But here's an absolute statement I can live with: In art/craft, there
> is no
> substitute for thoroughness and craftsmanship. Carelessness in methods
> breeds shabby results. In this case, I think that Mel's statements are
> misleading, and in fact there is far more care and accuracy in his
> methods
> than his posts indicate. Obviously, John and Ron take a more
> quantitative,
> scientific approach, but the two methods are more compatible than
> either
> party is willing to admit right now, and that is a shame. An
> empirical,
> "seat-of-the-pants" approach such as Mel has practiced over time
> builds an
> intuitive feeling for materials that can serve the potter very well,
> while
> an obsessively quantitative, scientific approach can deny that
> possibility.
> I am not saying that Ron or John are guilty of the latter, because I
> think
> the world of both of them and their huge contribution to this
> discussion
> list. Obviously the potter needs to control the materials in her/his
> clay
> and glazes accurately, and before developing the kind of intuitive
> approach
> that Mel practices, it is always necessary to measure carefully and
> record
> one's recipes and results.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
| |
|
