[Clayart] Water and Raku and taking responsibility for words

[Gerholdclay]

Because you are fun to read, phrase succinctly, and obviously are aware of human nature.  There may be little peer review but we know from experience those on this forum who are worth listening to when technique and science are involved.  And when one of these says " you are wrong" the best thing to do is admit it and thank them for their knowledge.

Paul

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, John Baymore <jbaymore at compuserve.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> One of the things that is the problem with all Internet forums, listserves, blogs, and the like is that there is no formal "peer review" kind of process happening.  No carefully selected group of widely known experts are looking over what is getting "published".  
> 
> So all too often, far more than with the print media like books and magazines,  misinformation, distorted information, mis-quoted or misattributed information, or information processed through a core lack of real understanding of whatever is being discussed is passed along for the less experienced to peruse and assume is correct and/or valuable.  
> 
> It is both the beauty and the curse of such "open" venues for discussion.  It is wonderful that "everyone has a voice".  It is a shame that "everyone has a voice".  It leaves the readers in the difficult position of having to spend a lot of time figuring out who has the best voice, not just the loudest voice or the voice showing the most conviction.
> 
> Unfortunately the less experienced do not have a decent yardstick to easily recognize what items/facts are the gems and what are the slag amongst all of the vast pile of chatter on lists, blogs, and forums.   As an educator, I believe that we all have a responsibility to those people to make sure that the information they are reading is reasonably accurate.  
> 
> Luckily in some cases, people with real depth of experience and understanding like Ron Roy, John Hesselberth, Vince Pietelka and Steven Branfman come along on these various venues and bother to take some of their valuable time to steer the topic back onto something resembling accuracy.  Sometimes they do have to point blank say, "No, your are wrong".  All too often they then get "taken to task" by those with far less experience or knowledge on the given subject, but often with the loud persistent voice that the Internet venues so easily allow.  
> 
> It is sad, really.  
> 
> Eventually...... maybe these highly skilled folks stop bothering to comment so frequently .... or eventually maybe head elsewhere.   Getting into long drawn out back-and-forths (often with others of far less experience and knowledge) justifying the original comments takes even more and more of their valuable time.  (Those who persist at this are saints.)  Instead of getting respected for their well-known depth of knowledge, they have to prove it at every turn.  So as the input from these top-end people diminishes, the value of the venue often slowly slips.
> 
> Ah yes............ now on to the "preamble" to the raku comments.......... 
> 
> We unfortunately come to the use of phrases like "FOR ME......", and "......AND NOT TO DISPARAGE ANYONE OR ANYTHING, NOR TO CALL ANYONE'S WORK OR AESTHETIC INTO QUESTION.....", and the like.  I and my colleagues at the college often criticize our students for trying to use this exact kind of approach in critique sessions.  This is a conscious defensive tactic that allows someone to make a statement, but not take any real personal ownership of the views being expressed.  
> 
> It is like using the annoying phrase "I'm just sayin'".  
> 
> This same "lack-of-responsibility" approach actually can also be used in a passive/aggressive fashion........ to allow a person to attack an idea or individual without putting themselves in a position of personal accountability.  It can be a very convenient dodge.  
> 
> This 'preamble to what is about to be said' approach allows the person to easily deflect any subsequent comments or responses to what has actually been clearly and deliberately said.     "Hey... Don't get upset..... I was 'just sayin'!"   or "Hey... Don't get upset..... I was speaking for myself only!"   Using this tactic, a person can make a statement that they later can safely try to backtrack out of by using the justification that it was not really meant that way and it is perfectly valid anyway because it is their opinion for themselves.  But of course it doesn't have to be YOUR opinion.  
> 
> So, if you are "just sayin'  " or "speaking for myself"....... why bother to share the comments in this kind of venue?  You yourself already well know what your own thoughts on the subject are.  If you don't want to "put them out there" with some ownership... then just don't say them in a place like this in the first place. 
> 
> When someone posts using this tactic, they clearly have made a deliberate decision to stick that thought out there......... from the safety of their armored castle. 
> 
> News flash:  Sometimes someone's opinion can actually be wrong, misdirected, or misleading.  This idea does not go down well in today's US society..... when everyone wins a medal or gets a trophy.  
> 
> Even though I do not have anywhere near the depth of background that someone like Steven has (few do), I've had a little experience with both Japanese Raku (in Japan) and American raku, I teach courses on it at the college level, and I stand behind this following set of comments.    The following is not me "just sayin":
> 
> For those that might be reading this that don't have much background in the raku process (either Japanese or American style)........ raku pots can be made waterproof if needed, the colors do not have to fade, they can be perfectly "functional" in many, many uses, they can be "good for something", and raku clay is not "punky" (a word choice with totally negative connotations).  If you have real questions about raku, talk to someone like Steven Branfman, attend one of his workshops, and/or get his bookS.  
> 
> An additional thought I stand behind:  For the less experienced folks reading the CLAYART list in general (or any blog/forum/etc.) ........vet your sources before believing everything you read (including mine).  Remember that quantity is not a guarantee of quality.
> 
> (If you have a brain tumor and need an operation...... do you go to your local GP.... or to a specialist?   Heck, your local GP almost always has the wisdom to REFER you to a specialist instead of saying, "Hey, I'll do that.  I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.")
> 
> Some people would probably have everyone offer these kinds of "preambles" to all their postings when offering ideas,....... which they probably feel would make the listserve a far "kinder and gentler place".   No, what that does is make everything a big piece of "relativity". That implies that everyone's idea or opinion or approach is OK and on an equal footing.  Nope.... I'm sorry but it does not always work out that way.  Everyone is certainly entitled to having an opinion..... and everyone can share those opinions...... but that does not make their opinion necessarily correct.
> 
> I cannot resist the wry humor of ending this by saying that this posting of mine was ".......NOT TO DISPARAGE ANYONE OR ANYTHING, NOR TO CALL ANYONE'S WORK OR AESTHETIC INTO QUESTION." <g>
> 
> There.......... I'm just sayin'.   So you folks can't rag all over me on the list now. 
> 
> best,
> 
> ..........................john
> 
> PS:  Somehow,...... I don't think that is going to work <g>.  And why did I start posting on CLAYART again anyway?  Back to CAD.  <lol?> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached Message
> 
> 
> From:
> James Freeman <jamesfreemanstudio at gmail.com>
> 
> To:
> clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> 
> Subject:
> Re: [Clayart] Water and Raku (was Scoring)
> 
> Date:
> Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:53:13 -0500
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Bramfman wrote:
> James,
> 
> It's been a long while since I've posted to CLAYART but James, I must say,
> your post stirred me up. Your obvious disrespect and lack of knowledge
> about Raku is not only ignorant, and juvenile, but mean spirited. Frankly,
> I'm not even interested in educating you. I do have a suggestion though,
> stop doing whatever it is that you think is Raku, stop talking about
> whatever you think is Raku, and definitely stop doing what you think is
> Raku with children. They deserve to be introduced to Raku with respect and
> taught about the history and culture of an ancient method of firing ware.
> 
> 
> 
> Steven...
> 
> Wow, nice to meet you too!  Talk about mean spirited!
> 
> With all due respect, you haven't a clue what I know about Raku, either
> traditional or American, and you have no clue as to whether I respect
> either.  You jumped to some rather unsupportable conclusions, based on a
> flawed reading of what I wrote.
> 
> Truth is, I know a fair bit about both.  I even read your book.  Truth is,
> I respect both traditional and American raku, and not a word I said
> conveyed any disrespect whatsoever.
> 
> Just to clear things up, I'm going to quote verbatim what I said, but will
> highlight in all caps the words you seem to have missed.  I will insert in
> brackets an English translation of what the words mean:
> 
> FOR ME,Raku is just about fun and immediacy, and I typically only do it with
> non-potters, little kids, et cetera.
> 
> [That means, "this is what I personally get out of it"]
> 
> The pots aren't waterproof, the
> colors fade, and the clay is punky.
> 
> [These would be my personal reasons for only doing it for fun, and yes, I
> only like the copper glazes]
> 
> TO ME,AND NOT TO DISPARAGE ANYONE OR ANYTHING, NOR TO CALL ANYONE'S WORK OR
> AESTHETIC INTO QUESTION,
> 
> [This means just my personal opinion, applying only to me, and specifically
> not denying anyone else' opinions to the contrary]
> 
> the pots aren't good for much,
> 
> [That means the pots are not much good to me,  Surely I am allowed to make
> such a determination of utility for myself, am I not?]
> 
> so the only benefit I PERSONALLY derive is the fun
> inherent in the process, and the idea that a little kid can take a pot from
> bisque to finished piece that they can hold in their hands in well under an
> hour.
> 
> [This means "what I personally get out of the process".  Am I required to
> have some sort of deep spiritual experience?  Can't I just do it for fun
> and immediacy?]
> 
> 
> Steven, I defy you to find a single "disrespectful, ignorant, juvenile, or
> mean-spirited" word in what I wrote in the post to which you so stridently
> object.
> 
> I don't do traditional Raku, so though I do know a fair bit about it, I see
> no reason to educate my studio guests about it.  I also know a fair bit
> about the history of so-called American raku, but I can assure you none of
> them care about it.  All we want to do is have fun with the process.  I
> choose to simply fire pots, without a lot of spiritual baggage.  My doing
> so does nothing to diminish nor disparage anyone who does feel some sort of
> spirituality when firing their own pots.
> 
> The really funny thing is that you also seem to have completely missed what
> the post was about.  One gentleman asked why someone would use water with
> what I ignorantly call raku other than to cause crackle.  I responded to
> him with four paragraphs.  The first was a preamble explaining when and why
> I personally do what I ignorantly call raku.  The next three paragraphs,
> 75% of the post, answered his question.  You chose to respond to my
> preamble, which was nothing more than a statement of my own personal
> reasons for engaging in an activity which I ignorantly call raku, which, I
> now gather from your post, I am apparently not allowed to do.  In this
> spirit, I guess I need to issue an apology to all the Wiccans, since I
> celebrate Halloween without first acknowledging or even caring about its
> roots or history.  I also had a green beer on St. Patricks day without
> acknowledging or caring about its roots or history.  Heaven help me.
> 
> I told myself that I wasn't going to even bother to respond to personal
> attacks this time around, but Steven, I found your  nasty comment so
> "disrespectful, ignorant, juvenile, and mean-spirited" that I could not
> bite my tongue.  Since you so kindly offered me a helpful suggestion, I'll
> return the favor:  Read the damned post you are responding to before firing
> off an ill-conceived condemnation.  Heck, I'll even toss in a bonus
> suggestion:  If you differ with what someone said, counter the specific
> points rather than just calling names.
> 
> And now that you have broken the ice, I await the inevitable piling on.  I
> can hear a couple of people typing away as I speak. Nope, ClayArt hasn't
> changed a bit!
> 
> ...James
> 
> James Freeman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baymore
> 
> ジョン　ベーモア
> adjunct professor of ceramics
> 
> 
> 美術陶器の非常勤教授
> 
> 
> New Hampshire Institute of Art
> 
> 
> Immediate Past President; Potters Council of the American Ceramic Society
> 
> 
> River Bend Pottery
> Wilton,  NH  USA
> 
> http://www.JohnBaymore.com
> http://www.nhia.edu/new-facultypage-5/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clayart mailing list
> Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> http://lists.clayartworld.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clayart
>