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

douglas fur 23drb50 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 21:23:29 EST 2014

I think it is your glaze and you could call it Robert's blue or blues in C.
What I think you should append to that, if you are passing it on, would be
"adapted from a glaze I picked up on clay art". The idea being to continue
the thread of history so that future recipients can see the connection to
their own ceramic history.
There was a glazed Lili K. posted on the list a while back called "Leach
Satin Clear". I'm not sure how Leach, satin and clear got put together and
I've adapted it for ^6 but if I passed it on I'd include that pedigree.

Seola Creek
On Mar 2, 2014 4:22 PM, "Robert Harris" <robertgharris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I certainly strive to give proper credit. But where does this change? For
> example I recently reworked a glaze. Firstly I did a Si/Al biaxial. (And
> chose different numbers to the original), then I added in a bit of
> magnesium. Then I reworked the KNa:Ca levels. And that was just the base
> glaze.
> At the end of which I had a glaze whose recipe might have started off as a
> named glaze (I didn't get a name with it in this particular case ...). At
> this point though ... is it really his glaze, or my glaze?
> Robert
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:37 PM, David Woof <woofpots at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>> > DRB
>> > Seola Creek
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Clayart mailing list
>> > Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
>> > http://lists.clayartworld.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clayart
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clayart mailing list
>> Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
>> http://lists.clayartworld.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------

More information about the Clayart mailing list