[Clayart] Seconds

Ric Swenson ricswenson0823 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 3 08:58:18 EST 2016


use a "standard" measure...bar of  hand rolled glaze fired  un-glazed clay  1 cm thick  by measure of 10 cm in length on a bar marked with a sharp knife. on a line.....boil it for one  hour in water....measure the weight...  accurate  at both points...dry and then wet......then you have the proper % of absorb of water. and why pat it dry?...unless you do that for every sample?..then compare every sample the same...pat them all for a second?   a minute?   with what.... a towel?   a piece of paper?

standardize.
use a standard method and stick with it. This one should work for most usages. your measurements may vary...but not by much.
regards,

ric

> To: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 13:04:11 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Clayart] Seconds
> From: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> CC: woofpots at hotmail.com
> 
> David chiming in...........as well as the thickness dimensions of the bar and how long one boils the bar and pats it dry..........
> 
> david
> ***************************************************************************
> 
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:10:57 -0500
> > To: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > Subject: Re: [Clayart] Seconds
> > From: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > CC: ronroy at ca.inter.net
> > 
> > Hi Vince,
> > 
> > My criteria are different - I like to see porcelains vitrified to none  
> > or certainly less than .5 absorption. I find that porcelains with an  
> > absorbency of 2% will leak.
> > 
> > I used to think 5% absorption was good enough for stoneware but it's  
> > lower now - certainly between 3 and 1%.
> > 
> > I'm sure that the clay sellers will object to those numbers - they  
> > would prefer to have the ranges much higher. The greater latitude  
> > would make it easier to say they are maintaining a standard.
> > 
> > Perhaps we are measuring absorbency in a different way. I have noticed  
> > that any deviation in testing will have different results - even to  
> > the point of starting with hot bars instead of room temperature bars.
> > 
> > RR
> > 
> > Quoting Vince Pitelka via Clayart <clayart at lists.clayartworld.com>:
> > 
> > > Hi David -
> > > Porcelain bodies characteristically have an absorption of 0-2%, but  
> > > stoneware bodies are usually around 1-5% and earthenware bodies up  
> > > to 15%.
> > > - Vince
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Clayart [mailto:clayart-bounces at lists.clayartworld.com] On  
> > > Behalf Of David Woof via Clayart
> > > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 4:02 PM
> > > To: Clayart 2014 New <clayart at lists.clayartworld.com>
> > > Cc: David Woof <woofpots at hotmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Clayart] Seconds
> > >
> > > Hi Vince, Everyone,
> > >
> > > To arrive at the middle moderate consensus, someone(s) among us must  
> > > push our first vote to either of the extreme ends.
> > >
> > > Since I was reasonably sure that you and several others would  
> > > contribute the more moderate and well reasoned posts on the subject  
> > > (actually two related but separate facets) I chose to go for a both  
> > > barrels, high horse position.
> > >
> > > Actually, we all produce seconds that don't make the shard pile, in  
> > > that the work we may have been very proud of last year, last decade  
> > > or three, or last firing has been or will be seen thru a more  
> > > educated and critical lens if we are progressing and maturing both  
> > > in our technical skills of craft and our growing/changing aesthetic  
> > > sensibilities.
> > >
> > > Defining what constitutes a second is, as you and others have said,  
> > > very subjective.  Which is a defense for why I and others have said  
> > > that we do not sell seconds. (when is a craze considered a crackle?)
> > >
> > > I would hope that it should be thru a much more arbitrary lens to  
> > > reach a consensus regarding potentially harmful/dangerous glazes,  
> > > and clay body defects (including high absorption bodies that leak  
> > > thru to a wet foot, or cause delayed shivering, of glass splinters  
> > > into my soup, due to excessive water absorption.)
> > >
> > > Since this horse has been now beat to at least near death; Another  
> > > discussion could start by asking the purveyors and users of these  
> > > unsuitable clay  bodies with absorption rates above 1% why they are  
> > > offering or using these as suitable bodies for functional ware of  
> > > domestic utility.
> > > And what sort of ignorance causes potters to sell work made by these  
> > > defectively unsuitable bodies.
> > > While some freak out about the unproven potential for nasty bugs to  
> > > hide in the micro crazes of a glaze, a better question may be; what  
> > > nasty soup/soap scum and dishwater crap has been absorbed into  
> > > someone's fav coffee mug or salad bowl thru a porous body?
> > > This is an easy one, with an easy solution, so why do we shy away from it?
> > >
> > > Misneach,
> > > david....... sending love and prancing his "high Horse" off to  
> > > greener pastures on The Coquille.     <(:0)=(=====<
> > > *************************************************************************************************
> > >> To: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > >> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:04:33 -0600
> > >> Subject: Re: [Clayart] Seconds
> > >> From: clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > >> CC: vpitelka at dtccom.net
> > >>
> > >> Okay, trigger warning, ahead is Vince's slightly irritated response  
> > >> to several current posts about seconds.  If anyone wants to stand  
> > >> on their pedestal and preach about how they would never sully their  
> > >> reputation by selling less-than-perfect utilitarian wares that are  
> > >> functional fine but cosmetically blemished, and would be  
> > >> oh-so-embarrassed to see a blemished piece of their work in  
> > >> someone's home, I suggest that you get a grip, climb down off your  
> > >> high horse, and consider joining the rest of us in the real world.
> > >>
> > >> What is a cosmetic blemish?  Is it the same to you and to someone  
> > >> else?  If you see something as a cosmetic blemish, and someone else  
> > >> sees it as a perfectly acceptable surface anomaly, who's right?   
> > >> What about all the human and electrical/gas energy that went into  
> > >> creating that piece?  Why waste all that because of some personal  
> > >> delusion of grandeur?  By what standard do you determine when a  
> > >> piece is good enough and when it's not?
> > >>
> > >> I do have such standards, and I have never sold a piece of my work  
> > >> that seemed genuinely unattractive in my eyes, because that would  
> > >> in fact embarrass me.  I have simply tried to maintain practical  
> > >> and reasonable standard of what is acceptable in order to make the  
> > >> most of the resources that went into creating the work.  In many  
> > >> ways, this gets down to that same phenomenon where some people feel  
> > >> terribly embarrassed upon seeing examples of their early work in  
> > >> someone's home.  What the hell is that all about?  The primitive  
> > >> qualities or naivety in your early work simply underscore how far  
> > >> you've come.  If there really is anything worthwhile in your work,  
> > >> doesn't it make sense to be proud of everything you have made as  
> > >> long as you were sincere and gave it your best?
> > >>
> > >> Remember that quality in art/craft is mostly subjective.  So, one  
> > >> person might make incredible work with very few cosmetic defects,  
> > >> and even those pieces with cosmetic defects are still very fine  
> > >> work that few people would ever consider flawed.  Another person  
> > >> might have far lower standards and practically everything they make  
> > >> looks damned good to them, warts, blemishes, and all, so they can  
> > >> climb up on their high horse and claim to never sell seconds.  I am  
> > >> certainly not referring to anyone in particular, so don't get all  
> > >> hot and bothered.  I am just making a point.
> > >>
> > >> Can you really justify destroying a piece because of cosmetic  
> > >> blemishes that make the work a little different from what you  
> > >> intended or what you normally do, even if it is still good work  
> > >> that is attractive to someone else and brings them pleasure?   
> > >> Destroying utilitarian work that is cosmetically blemished but  
> > >> still looks good and is perfectly functional seems very wasteful  
> > >> and terribly self-absorbed.  Believing that this is a question of  
> > >> an artist's or craftsperson's personal integrity or ethics is an  
> > >> artificial construct that has no basis in reality.  It has nothing  
> > >> to do with what anyone else is going to think of you or your work.   
> > >> On the contrary, the admiring and buying public always respects an  
> > >> artist/craftsperson who shows great pride in their own work by  
> > >> celebrating every piece they create that is not physically  
> > >> defective, accepting the personal choices and ceramic processes  
> > >> that cause each piece to turn out as it does, and perhaps even more  
> > >> in conserving creative, physical, and gas/electric energy that went  
> > >> into the work by making the most of every piece.
> > >> - Vince
> > >>
> > >> Vince Pitelka
> > >> Appalachian Center for Craft
> > >> Tennessee Tech University
> > >> vpitelka at dtccom.net
> > >> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Clayart mailing list
> > >> Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > >> http://lists.clayartworld.com/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> > >>
> > >
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:  
> > > <http://lists.clayartworld.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20160101/bba55255/attachment.html>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Clayart mailing list
> > > Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > > http://lists.clayartworld.com/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Clayart mailing list
> > > Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > > http://lists.clayartworld.com/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ron Roy
> > ronroy at ca.inter.net
> > Web page ronroy.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Clayart mailing list
> > Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> > http://lists.clayartworld.com/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> > 
>  		 	   		  
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.clayartworld.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20160102/d5d1d5e6/attachment.html>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clayart mailing list
> Clayart at lists.clayartworld.com
> http://lists.clayartworld.com/mailman/listinfo/clayart
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clayartworld.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20160103/708f6cfb/attachment.html>


More information about the Clayart mailing list