terrylazaroff at gmail.com
Thu Sep 9 17:14:21 UTC 2021
We could argue that the pug mill and the extruded is one machine. Now if you had another devise that operated separately, eg. an automatic cutoff wire cutting the tiles at a preset desired length, that would be questionable.
As you say,”a little wiggle room.”
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 12:30 PM, W Seidl <wjsmaine at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sticking my nose in here for a moment. I have to take exception to "rule" 3. My pugmill discharges clay directly into my extruder. Sometimes I'm guiding it by hand, sometimes not. It depends on what I'm attempting at the time.
> I find it hard to believe that because of that, I cannot classify what I do as hand-made or hand crafted. Were I a purist, I suppose that just using a pugmill or an extruder would therefore disqualify the work rule 3 allows...but I think there might just be a little wiggle room. My opinion.
> Wayne in Maine
> not shooting any messengers here...saving those bullets for the skunks and foxes trying to eat my chickens.
>>>>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Terry Lazaroff <terrylazaroff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 3. The master could use any tools and machines necessary to create the object, however, one machine could not feed another machine, thus the crafter was required to manipulate the object at every step of the way.
>>>>> Food for thought. Don’t shoot the messenger.
More information about the Clayart