[Clayart] "What's in a name?" glazes

David Woof woofpots at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 2 15:37:38 EST 2014

Hi DRB, Everyone,

Doug brings up the "ethical" issue in this thread and I think it is the place to start and the where-with-all of how we conduct ourselves as professionals in our field.   This also applies in my mind, with equal expectation, to those who are involved in Ceramics as part time hobby, avocation, retired corporate escapee living the dream........ Though perhaps not considering one's self as a Professional; striving for Professionalism, and the attitude of professional courtesy is with-in reach of all.  It informs our work, makes it stronger by the ethical strength within us.   When honesty in our work is readily perceived, no defense for our character is needed.

Though our handing down glazes, and reformulating or formulating new is not entirely applicable to writing a paper,  our work too comes under scrutiny of the words, concepts, definitions of; Quote, Paraphrase, Summarizing and Plagiarism.  

It is good to review these and remember that: Plagiarism is copying without crediting the source.  Plagiarism is stealing!    And DRB touches on this with his questions regarding reworking existing glazes which in one sense could connote paraphrasing which in writing must be cited, as a professional courtesy, in a footnote, endnote, or parenthetical notation.

Ron and John demonstrate attentiveness to these issues when we see "Xavier's Warm Jade Reformulated by RR" etc.

>From where and whom does the new or next generation of Ceramists get their example?    From the few cheaters among us?  The few who, since Glaze Calc. programs have come into vogue making unity formulas instantly accessible, have taken old glazes, usually written as whole percentages, and now describe them to one hundredth percents and publish with their name or a new name replacing the original credit.   I'm sure we have all noticed this if our interest and experience level makes it so.

And while I know how I have and will continue to conduct myself in this regard,  I too leave the question open to hear what others think in this regard.

Best to all,

David Woof............. World domination, the Nobel Prize, or..... getting our name on a glaze or clay body are but futile attempts at immortality.  Let's have some fun while we fake adulthood, enlightenment, or what ever........

> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:55:16 -0800
> From: 23drb50 at gmail.com
> To: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> Subject: [Clayart] "What's in a name?" glazes
> It's an interesting ethical question; when does a glaze become your own?.
> Mel uses "Rhodes' 32" but are the spar, clay and other ingredients the same
> as Rhodes used 50 years ago? I'm working on a glaze Cardew attributed to
> Parmalee. He gives the Seger formula and an example with Nigerian
> materials. I have no clue what materials Parmalee would have chosen and
> I've adapted the formula for ^6 and the materials I have on hand.
> You could argue that we have made these glazes our own, Mel's Matte or
> Parma-Red, but I think it's more useful to recognize the roots of our work.
> To share in an open source style who we are and where we've come from. The
> effect is to say this is my pot and the name tells about its roots.
> There is something about shifting a name, as mentioned in an earlier post,
> from Wirt's Carbon Trap to Malcolm's Carbon Trap that's insincere. It's as
> if putting a more "famous" name on a glaze increases the quality of the pot
> on which the glaze is used. The assumption is that the authority of the
> famous can be transferred to the pot. It's the opposite of self expression
> and why we make things.
> Seola Creek
> _______________________________________________
> Clayart mailing list
> Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> http://lists.clayartworld.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clayart

More information about the Clayart mailing list