[Clayart] What he said…
Joseph Herbert via Clayart
“I wonder if, when we all decided that clay and glazes [were] the right
thing
to do, did we have any idea just how complicated this all is!”
RR
That is what he said and the answer (probably for most) is NO. Also, for
many, there is little or no recognition of the complication, even some way
along.
The strangeness of this situation is the thousands of years of empirical,
intuitive practice of ceramics before it became high temperature oxide
chemistry as an art topic.
The physical material, clay, with its odd suite of properties related to
the particle size and shape and hydrophilic reactions, is as beguiling now
as it ever was. There may be a few involved in ceramics who did not make a
sliding thumbprint in damp clay to seal their fate. (Counter Examples could
be a catalyst chemist looking at the interaction of clay surfaces with
hydrocarbons or a porcelain machinist making high voltage insulators.) But
not many.
So, most (all) people had no idea the technical minefield they entered when
they fondled their first clay lump. It is pushed and prodded and retains
its shape; by further magical occurrences that impromptu gesture can become
as permanent as stone. And it can all seem so easy. “Primitive” people
create marvelous ceramic objects with clay they dig and firing practices we
wouldn’t attempt. And it has been so for a long time.
Well, what’s the problem?
Rising expectations. As we want more specific things from the ceramic ware,
the complexity underlying the age-old utilitarian success of burnished
pit-fired ware begins to reveal itself.
What if you want it to be white? Well now, we are off on an anti-iron
adventure, and iron is among the most common elements on earth. And, the
way I fired before is not hot enough now!?! And now you ask, why is that?
This is where the hard stuff starts. The more specific the thing you demand
of the clay, the more technically difficulty it can be to achieve.
At the traditional kilns of China, Japanese, or Korea there are mountains
of shards demonstrating the traditional answer to technical failure:
disposal. One result of increased ceramic scientific knowledge is fewer
“seconds” or rejects. Another part of non-studio ceramic practice
expectation is absolute consistency. Tile and dish manufacturers now
control the process so tightly one object is mostly indistinguishable from
the next.
Even so, changes in mining processes, materials processing, or even the
disappearance of a material challenges ceramic science. Studio or small
scale potters are usually less tied to a single outcome and accept
variation while adapted their processes and products.
As an example of adaptation leading to good results, there are examples of
“Bristol Ware”, imitating some English pottery of the time, made in North
Carolina very early in settlement. The glaze materials were mostly (all?)
imported and expensive. NC potters moved inland, found stoneware clay,
found forests of fuel, and alkali glazed mountain stoneware was born.
Here we are confronting chemical challenges, physical roadblocks, and
un-observed subtleties of process. When we get a result we don’t want, what
chance do we have of knowing what created our disappointment? If it happens
sporadically, almost none (unless you know that gnarly, old-growth potter
down the lane who fought that result 35 years ago and won). If it is a
flaw that continues to occur, it may drive you to science: recorded
observations, controlled experiments, more observation, data analysis,
library research, and a solution, maybe.
It is an old saying that Pottery Glazes often do not travel well. The
reason is in all the possible variations in materials, water, studio
processes, and firing to get to finished ware. The same is true for fixes
to problems. What works for Bob in Denver may not help Gretchen in
Australia at all.
As far as I know, Ringo Starr is not a potter but he knows it don’t come
easy.
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clayartforum.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20250906/d0b2630d/attachment.htm>
kathi--- via Clayart
Kathi LeSueur
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 6, 2025, at 9:52 PM, Joseph Herbert via Clayart <cla...@lists.clayartforum.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
ronroy--- via Clayart
you talk!
"it may drive you to science"
Quoting Joseph Herbert via Clayart <cla...@lists.clayartforum.com>:
> Hello,
>
> ?I wonder if, when we all decided that clay and glazes [were] the right
> thing
> to do, did we have any idea just how complicated this all is!?
> RR
>
> That is what he said and the answer (probably for most) is NO. Also, for
> many, there is little or no recognition of the complication, even some way
> along.
>
> The strangeness of this situation is the thousands of years of empirical,
> intuitive practice of ceramics before it became high temperature oxide
> chemistry as an art topic.
>
> The physical material, clay, with its odd suite of properties related to
> the particle size and shape and hydrophilic reactions, is as beguiling now
> as it ever was. There may be a few involved in ceramics who did not make a
> sliding thumbprint in damp clay to seal their fate. (Counter Examples could
> be a catalyst chemist looking at the interaction of clay surfaces with
> hydrocarbons or a porcelain machinist making high voltage insulators.) But
> not many.
>
> So, most (all) people had no idea the technical minefield they entered when
> they fondled their first clay lump. It is pushed and prodded and retains
> its shape; by further magical occurrences that impromptu gesture can become
>
> Well, what?s the problem?
> Rising expectations. As we want more specific things from the ceramic ware,
> the complexity underlying the age-old utilitarian success of burnished
> pit-fired ware begins to reveal itself.
>
> What if you want it to be white? Well now, we are off on an anti-iron
> adventure, and iron is among the most common elements on earth. And, the
> way I fired before is not hot enough now!?! And now you ask, why is that?
> This is where the hard stuff starts. The more specific the thing you demand
> of the clay, the more technically difficulty it can be to achieve.
>
> At the traditional kilns of China, Japanese, or Korea there are mountains
> of shards demonstrating the traditional answer to technical failure:
> disposal. One result of increased ceramic scientific knowledge is fewer
> control the process so tightly one object is mostly indistinguishable from
> the next.
>
> Even so, changes in mining processes, materials processing, or even the
> disappearance of a material challenges ceramic science. Studio or small
> scale potters are usually less tied to a single outcome and accept
> variation while adapted their processes and products.
>
> As an example of adaptation leading to good results, there are examples of
> imported and expensive. NC potters moved inland, found stoneware clay,
> found forests of fuel, and alkali glazed mountain stoneware was born.
>
> Here we are confronting chemical challenges, physical roadblocks, and
> sporadically, almost none (unless you know that gnarly, old-growth potter
> down the lane who fought that result 35 years ago and won). If it is a
> flaw that continues to occur, it may drive you to science: recorded
> observations, controlled experiments, more observation, data analysis,
> library research, and a solution, maybe.
>
> It is an old saying that Pottery Glazes often do not travel well. The
> reason is in all the possible variations in materials, water, studio
> processes, and firing to get to finished ware. The same is true for fixes
> to problems. What works for Bob in Denver may not help Gretchen in
> Australia at all.
>
>
> Joe
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.clayartforum.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20250906/d0b2630d/attachment.htm>
>
ron...@ca.inter.net
Web page ronroy.net
ronroy--- via Clayart
The operator is trying to just get the good stuff but it's not easy.
I've seen the profiles of some clay mines and some have waves of
sediment - like not level. In other words - with heavy equipment it's
not easy to just get the good stuff.
The other image I have is a clay miner 400 years ago with a shovel.
They would be able to just get the good stuff.
> ?I wonder if, when we all decided that clay and glazes [were] the right
> thing
> to do, did we have any idea just how complicated this all is!?
> RR
>
> That is what he said and the answer (probably for most) is NO. Also, for
> many, there is little or no recognition of the complication, even some way
> along.
>
> The strangeness of this situation is the thousands of years of empirical,
> intuitive practice of ceramics before it became high temperature oxide
> chemistry as an art topic.
>
> The physical material, clay, with its odd suite of properties related to
> the particle size and shape and hydrophilic reactions, is as beguiling now
> as it ever was. There may be a few involved in ceramics who did not make a
> sliding thumbprint in damp clay to seal their fate. (Counter Examples could
> be a catalyst chemist looking at the interaction of clay surfaces with
> hydrocarbons or a porcelain machinist making high voltage insulators.) But
> not many.
>
> So, most (all) people had no idea the technical minefield they entered when
> they fondled their first clay lump. It is pushed and prodded and retains
> its shape; by further magical occurrences that impromptu gesture can become
>
> Well, what?s the problem?
> Rising expectations. As we want more specific things from the ceramic ware,
> the complexity underlying the age-old utilitarian success of burnished
> pit-fired ware begins to reveal itself.
>
> What if you want it to be white? Well now, we are off on an anti-iron
> adventure, and iron is among the most common elements on earth. And, the
> way I fired before is not hot enough now!?! And now you ask, why is that?
> This is where the hard stuff starts. The more specific the thing you demand
> of the clay, the more technically difficulty it can be to achieve.
>
> At the traditional kilns of China, Japanese, or Korea there are mountains
> of shards demonstrating the traditional answer to technical failure:
> disposal. One result of increased ceramic scientific knowledge is fewer
> control the process so tightly one object is mostly indistinguishable from
> the next.
>
> Even so, changes in mining processes, materials processing, or even the
> disappearance of a material challenges ceramic science. Studio or small
> scale potters are usually less tied to a single outcome and accept
> variation while adapted their processes and products.
>
> As an example of adaptation leading to good results, there are examples of
> imported and expensive. NC potters moved inland, found stoneware clay,
> found forests of fuel, and alkali glazed mountain stoneware was born.
>
> Here we are confronting chemical challenges, physical roadblocks, and
> sporadically, almost none (unless you know that gnarly, old-growth potter
> down the lane who fought that result 35 years ago and won). If it is a
> flaw that continues to occur, it may drive you to science: recorded
> observations, controlled experiments, more observation, data analysis,
> library research, and a solution, maybe.
>
> It is an old saying that Pottery Glazes often do not travel well. The
> reason is in all the possible variations in materials, water, studio
> processes, and firing to get to finished ware. The same is true for fixes
> to problems. What works for Bob in Denver may not help Gretchen in
> Australia at all.
>
>
> Joe
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://lists.clayartforum.com/pipermail/clayart/attachments/20250906/d0b2630d/attachment.htm>
>