pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 23 mar 07
Hi Vince, all...
Oye, been considerably fevered and chilled in turns, and quite a bit
too...plenty of always changing come-and-go achey and fatigue and so on
since getting home...bad BAD recirculated stale air on the flights both ways
( probably some 'scientist' was payed to say "Hey, that's fine, let 'em
breathe it...it meets the minimum biologic requirements" - as long as we
ignore all the molds, bacteria, viruses, off-gassing pastics, and probable
contaigens of infected passengers getting circulated endlessly, which need
not enter into their usual kind of so called "study"...) ...but this topic
caught my eye...
Maybe I missed something here, or misunderstood, or am just feeling
grouchy...and I have only partially scanned some of this thread off and
on...but to me it seems worse than ridiculous for 'scientists' to proclaim
that aging Clay does not improve it, and then to say, as an incidental, or a
grudgeing concession, "Well, if ORGANICS are present then it DOES or 'may'
Well why not just say 'that' in the first place?
Who the hell set the (presumed?) conditions for the 'aging' anyway, him?
"Science"...just seems to sink more and more into having no respectibility
at all...and less sense.
I guess one can similarly say, "Getting a PHD does not improve one's wits,
or sense, nor is there any need to have had any of either in the first
...and one would be just as much if not more technically 'correct'.
...will someone please write to this so called "Dr. Carty" and ask him to
consult a Dictionary to discover the definition, rather than a sadly all too
tyipcal complaisently acquired and ignorant connotation or by now popular
slang, and mis-use, and gruesome vulgarization, of what the term "Myth" (
actually ) means?
Maybe a pre-PC Dictionary, when literacy was possible to find of those who
wrote or compiled it, and, more poignant yet, was presumed by the writers of
those who might consult or read it.
...or some apt and clearifying passage of Joseph Campbell...
Not that he will understand what Myth 'means', but that he might find
something at least of what it is not?
And some of what it is not, is casual mis-information, false information,
inherited compromised descriptions or unsubstantiated or corrupted
information of whatever kind, of whatever provenance, of whatever
popularity, or strories 'merely', or errors of belief...or superstition or
low social useage of terms.
Anymore than 'Science' is pedantic stupidity, made into praxis and outlook
Have him look up 'Science' too...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> Wayne Seidl wrote:
>> However, I do believe we're all on the same page here, we're not really
>> Wayne Seidl
> I'm sure you are correct, Wayne. I have nothing against science. I was
> raised by two emminent scientists. I do think that occasionally
> can develop their pet theories contrary to observable reality, but I
> certainly would not pre-judge Dr. Carty's assertions before thoroughly
> reading the presentation whenever it comes out in the NCECA journal. Our
> beloved Stephani Stephenson originally stated it as if Dr. Carty had
> declared that the idea that aging improves plasticity was a myth. That's
> what I was reacting to.
> I really like what Richard Aerni said in his post tonight: "You can beat
> potter over the head with a science book, but if the potter's hands tell
> him/her that something is true, then it is true, no matter what science
> says." There is another beloved member of this list who ocasionally tries
> to beat me over the head with science books with no success at all, and it
> frustrates the hell out of him. I can only go by what I observe and
> experience, and I will believe that before I believe contradicting science
> every time.
> I am looking forward to receiving the NCECA journal. I hope they get it
> in a timely fashion.
> - Vince
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
> Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
stephani stephenson on fri 23 mar 07
i am responding , because it i think i tossed out the
initial challenge to the group on this, which has
generated some great conversation... but to be fair to
the panelist, especially Dr. Carty, who was on the
he did in fact ,say that this particular research did
not take into account the effects of biological (read
ph, etc) effects, and he acknowledged there were
also he also pointed out that the
individual's preference in how the clay handles and
works is of great importance to that individual
potter. our hands are quite sensitive in telling us
about clay's workability...and how it suits our
individual needs and works for us in our forming firng
drying and glazing processes. water content has a lot
to do with this preference.
and i think aging has a lot to do with the feel of it
but are how the clay feels and plasticity totally one
and the same? or are there other factors, besides
overall clay content?
i think what he was trying to do was to get us think
beyond our traditional view of what contributes to the
plasticity of clay. he and others are really looking
into the properties of clay bodies and trying to
determine what intrinsically determines plasticity. in
other words, if you exclude aging , exclude biological
processes, what else is there, in the body itself? of
course there is the amount of clay, the size of clay
particles (ball clay for example), but what else?
i think this is enormously helpful , and Dave put it
very well in his recent post, as did michael Wendt.
matt, on the panel was looking at particle size
distribution in different clays as a factor. what is
interesting to me is that, old time tilemakers say
that a good clay needs to have 3 different sizes of
grog... now this is grog, not clay particles, so grog
is a macro scale compared to the size of clay, but
the same sort of perspective.. the way the particles
are packed... a room full of volleyballs, vs. a room
full of talc, vs a room with a combination of
sizes...affects how they move and give, affects how
dense the room is, the volume of water the room can
hold if it is flooded, and this would have to affect
physical properties such as plasticity....
i think that perhaps i erred in presenting that claim
to the group , a la carte as i did.....because it
certainly was presented within the context of the
presentation , and within that context it makes
sense.. but also
it does challenge us to think about our materials....
Though scientists may work more with electron scans
we have common goals in that we are all want good,
better clay bodies ..
so i am glad they are in the discussion ... i think
they listen and i think they really do want to cross
the great divide with respect to communication
understanding of materials and improved bodies
.wow everytime someone in industry, someone in
science, someone in business looks at improving a
throwing bodies , a hand worked body.
what could be better ? especially who buy clay rather
than dig it out of
fragrant mucky river beds, etc!
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.