Nancy Benco on thu 22 may 97
I'm an archeologist, interested in ancient pottery. We are trying
to develop ways to evaluate ancient potters' technological capabilities.
Are there any references--in the contemporary pottery
literature--for ways to assess quantitatively (or qualitatively) the
degree of technological knowledge or skill required for different kinds of
clay preparation and pottery forming, decorating, and firing techniques.
For example, is it more difficult to coil pottery than it is to draw it up
in forming? Is throwing clay on a wheel more difficult than coiling, and
how much more difficult (2 times or 10 times as difficult in terms of the
knowledge and skills required)?
Have such assessment criteria been developed, perhaps, for
teaching purposes or competitions? If so, where might they be obtained?
Thanks for any suggestions you may have. Nancy Benco
Nancy L. Benco
Dept. of Anthropology
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
E-mail: BENCO@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU
Fax: (202) 994-6097
Brad Sondahl on fri 23 may 97
Nancy Benco wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I'm an archeologist, interested in ancient pottery. We are trying
> to develop ways to evaluate ancient potters' technological capabilities.
>
> Are there any references--in the contemporary pottery
> literature--for ways to assess quantitatively (or qualitatively) the
> degree of technological knowledge or skill required for different kinds of
> clay preparation and pottery forming, decorating, and firing techniques.
> For example, is it more difficult to coil pottery than it is to draw it up
> in forming? Is throwing clay on a wheel more difficult than coiling, and
> how much more difficult (2 times or 10 times as difficult in terms of the
> knowledge and skills required)?
I think this query deserves a common sense response. I think you could
approach this question from materials, forms, forming techiques, or
decorations.
Materials: local materials dictate quality to a great extent. Our local
NezPerce Indians had no access to quality clay deposits in this basalt
canyon country, and never developed pottery making, but traditionally
cooked in wood vessels with hot stones dropped in. This does not denote
a low technological ability--only a lack of appropriate materials.
Porcelain is the most technologically challenging pottery, but it's
impossible without plastic kaolin (which is abundant in China). China
also had deposits of cobalt, making it inevitable the trend towards
brilliant blues.
Forms: Clearly the simpler the form, the tendency would be toward
simpler technology, but aesthetics can turn this on its head. (Consider
colorful folk pottery as compared to stark modern terracotta
sculpture--which speaks of higher techology?)
Forming technique: You have to invent the wheel, in order to use one, so
throwing marks tend to indicate higher technology than coil built. But I
couldn't throw a decent 4 foot water jar even in sections, while 3rd
world potters crank them out by coiling with ease. Casting is also
highly organized, and both the wheel and casting would denote a
passed-on culture higher than simple unglazed handbuilts.
Decoration: Clearly the use of polychromic colorants or slips, and
varying well fitted glazes denotes a higher sophistication of ability.
But again aesthetics can make extremely sophisticated glazes appear
simple (such as classic Celadon glazes)
These thoughts are all from common sense. Art potters can speculate on
historic pots, and appreciate their beauty, but the real evaluation of
the questions you ask lie in the parlance of archeology, and are not
likely to be systematically addressed in our field.
Brad Sondahl
bsondahl@camasnet.com
http://www.camasnet.com/~asondahl
PO Box 96, Nezperce ID 83543
"When it comes to dabbling, I'm just a dilettante..."
Grimmer on sat 24 may 97
Hi,
Wow, this one could be fun...
Going out on a limb, here, but here's my immediate thoughts.
Higher firing temperatures generally mean, archeologically
speaking, higher technology. At the low end would be pots fired
in a bonfire or pit. At the high end might be the Sung and Ming wares.
Exceptions abound (Iznik wares).
The more processed and refined the clay body, the higher the tech-
nology. Clay right out of the ground=low tech, porcelain and whitewares
of the Middle East=high tech.
More refined (finer) decoration indicates higher technology.
At the low end, we find impressed decoration; at the high end,
over-glaze enamels, lustres, multiple temperature glazes co-
existing on a single pot.
Throwing is harder than coiling is harder than pinching. It's hard
to draw strict lines here, too. One does a lot of pinching when one
coils. Some peoples added a coil and then would 'throw' the coil
to gain height and thinness. I add coils when I throw big pots.
Is throwing 10 times harder than coiling? I dunno. I can't coil
for squat, but I guess I'm a pretty good thrower. I know folks who
can coil like the dickens, but never got the knack for the wheel.
Then there's those who can do what ever they want and it looks
great. Go figure.
As far as references in the literature that quantify this stuff, there
is a good book titled _Pottery Analysis_ by a woman whose name
escapes me cause we're getting ready to move and all my books are
packed up. Anyone out there have that one? I can't recall if she
comes out and puts numbers on things, but there are nice technical
analyses of current indigenous potteries.
Disclaimer: Higher technology doesn't mean higher aesthetic
value.
What can you add Vince P.?
steve grimmer
carterville illinois
grimmer@mychoice.net
Vince Pitelka on sun 25 may 97
>Higher firing temperatures generally mean, archeologically
>speaking, higher technology. At the low end would be pots fired
>in a bonfire or pit.>The more processed and refined the clay body, the
>higher the technology. Clay right out of the ground=low tech,
>More refined (finer) decoration indicates higher technology.
>At the low end, we find impressed decoration; at the high end,
>over-glaze enamels, lustres, multiple temperature glazes co-
>existing on a single pot.
>Throwing is harder than coiling is harder than pinching. It's hard
>to draw strict lines here, too.
>Disclaimer: Higher technology doesn't mean higher aesthetic
>value.
>What can you add Vince P.?
Steve -
I had been watching this thread with much interest, and since you invited me
.. . .
I was gratified by your disclaimer. Promoting the awareness and study of
ancient and tribal clay has been something of a crusade of mine. When I was
in undergrad school the two primary historical directions we investigated
were East Asian and Early American. I really did not learn anything about
ancient and tribal clay until I was in grad school.
I have to disagree with you concerning the difficulty of throwing versus
coil-construction. Making a technically good pot on the wheel is MUCH
easier than by coil construction. And the wheel tends to impose mechanical
precision, whereas any symmetry and mechanical precision in coil constructed
pots is purely due to the potters eye and skil. One important consideration
here is that pre-industrial coil-built pots are often very smooth and
symmetrical, but equally often they are purposefully asymmetrical. With the
full adoption of the potters wheel in various cultures, asymmetrical pots
decline and then almost entirely dissappear. Mechanized processes and
technological developments often have a profound affect on our aesthetic
senses over time, which is something to consider very carefully.
I have come to the conclusion that industrial sophistication usually
subverts openminded aesthetic sophistication. Or, to put it another way, as
an industrial capitalistic civilization becomes more powerful, it becomes
more obsessed with the fruits of its own success. Art always responds to
the time and place in which it is created, and such a civilization almost by
definition becomes self-righteous about its own art usually at the exclusion
or suppression of all other art. That has happened through history over and
over again. Hopefully by now we have learned from history's mistakes.
Today I see much more awareness of the broad spectrum of ceramic history in
most segments of the ceramic community.
Regarding Nancy Benco's original post, one can certainly compare examples of
any ceramic construction process worldwide through history and come up with
a good evaluation of the technical skill of the maker in any individual
case. And one can imply that the appearance of the potters wheel (as a
basic machine) is a sign of mechanical ingenuity. But what do those things
really mean in the appreciation of a great pot? By whatever method a potter
uses, making a really fine pot is an extraordinary accomplishment, and to do
so consistently and repeatedly requires enormous skill and sophistication in
the particular techniques. Assessing the technological sophistication of
the maker is interesting, and historically important, but history has shown
that placing too much emphasis on the level of technological sophistication
can subvert aesthetic appreciation and understanding.
Consider this. Other than museum conservation, the beauty and power of
Jomon pots or pre-dynastic Chinese or Egyptian pots or Precolumbian pots or
contemporary Pueblo pots could in no way be increased by any modern
industrial or technological processes.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
Appalachian Center for Crafts
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Grimmer on mon 26 may 97
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> I have to disagree with you concerning the difficulty of throwing versus
> coil-construction. Making a technically good pot on the wheel is MUCH
> easier than by coil construction.
Vince,
In my case throwing is, indeed, easier than coiling. It seems
to me tho that it's easier to pick up coiling than throwing. Making
a technically (aesthetically) good pot is a life-long endeavor
regardless of technique. Therein lies one of the joys of this
clay stuff.
>And the wheel tends to impose mechanical
> precision, whereas any symmetry and mechanical precision in coil constructed
> pots is purely due to the potters eye and skil.
To quote Ken Ferguson, "I live for that little wobble."
>By whatever method a potter
> uses, making a really fine pot is an extraordinary accomplishment, and to do
> so consistently and repeatedly requires enormous skill and sophistication in
> the particular techniques. Assessing the technological sophistication of
> the maker is interesting, and historically important, but history has shown
> that placing too much emphasis on the level of technological sophistication
> can subvert aesthetic appreciation and understanding.
Indeed.
> Consider this. Other than museum conservation, the beauty and power of
> Jomon pots or pre-dynastic Chinese or Egyptian pots or Precolumbian pots or
> contemporary Pueblo pots could in no way be increased by any modern
> industrial or technological processes.
May I add the pots of the Agean cultures, especially Minos?
steve grimmer
carterville illinois
grimmer@mychoice.net
> - Vince
Nancy Benco on tue 27 may 97
Hi,
Just an after thought on the technological vs aesthetic debate.
During pre-industrial times, pottery in general was embedded--primarily--
within a functional context, that is, it was perceived as a tool to
accomplish something; in some cases, this included its artistic or
symbolic qualities.
In our contemporary Western world, however, we look at pottery
with different eyes; although we use ceramics (mostly high fired) for many
of the same purposes as in the past (eating, serving, storing food), we
tend to look at "pottery" as I believe most of you practice it as fine
art--for its beauty and aesthetic qualities. If it can be used in a
microwave or dish washer, all the better; but for the most part, it's
meant to be displayed and appreciated for its artistic aspects.
Is this how you see it?
Nancy L. Benco
Dept. of Anthropology
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052
E-mail: BENCO@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU
Fax: (202) 994-6097
On Sun, 25 May 1997, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >Higher firing temperatures generally mean, archeologically
> >speaking, higher technology. At the low end would be pots fired
> >in a bonfire or pit.>The more processed and refined the clay body, the
> >higher the technology. Clay right out of the ground=low tech,
> >More refined (finer) decoration indicates higher technology.
> >At the low end, we find impressed decoration; at the high end,
> >over-glaze enamels, lustres, multiple temperature glazes co-
> >existing on a single pot.
> >Throwing is harder than coiling is harder than pinching. It's hard
> >to draw strict lines here, too.
> >Disclaimer: Higher technology doesn't mean higher aesthetic
> >value.
> >What can you add Vince P.?
>
> Steve -
> I had been watching this thread with much interest, and since you invited me
> . . .
>
> I was gratified by your disclaimer. Promoting the awareness and study of
> ancient and tribal clay has been something of a crusade of mine. When I was
> in undergrad school the two primary historical directions we investigated
> were East Asian and Early American. I really did not learn anything about
> ancient and tribal clay until I was in grad school.
>
> I have to disagree with you concerning the difficulty of throwing versus
> coil-construction. Making a technically good pot on the wheel is MUCH
> easier than by coil construction. And the wheel tends to impose mechanical
> precision, whereas any symmetry and mechanical precision in coil constructed
> pots is purely due to the potters eye and skil. One important consideration
> here is that pre-industrial coil-built pots are often very smooth and
> symmetrical, but equally often they are purposefully asymmetrical. With the
> full adoption of the potters wheel in various cultures, asymmetrical pots
> decline and then almost entirely dissappear. Mechanized processes and
> technological developments often have a profound affect on our aesthetic
> senses over time, which is something to consider very carefully.
>
> I have come to the conclusion that industrial sophistication usually
> subverts openminded aesthetic sophistication. Or, to put it another way, as
> an industrial capitalistic civilization becomes more powerful, it becomes
> more obsessed with the fruits of its own success. Art always responds to
> the time and place in which it is created, and such a civilization almost by
> definition becomes self-righteous about its own art usually at the exclusion
> or suppression of all other art. That has happened through history over and
> over again. Hopefully by now we have learned from history's mistakes.
> Today I see much more awareness of the broad spectrum of ceramic history in
> most segments of the ceramic community.
>
> Regarding Nancy Benco's original post, one can certainly compare examples of
> any ceramic construction process worldwide through history and come up with
> a good evaluation of the technical skill of the maker in any individual
> case. And one can imply that the appearance of the potters wheel (as a
> basic machine) is a sign of mechanical ingenuity. But what do those things
> really mean in the appreciation of a great pot? By whatever method a potter
> uses, making a really fine pot is an extraordinary accomplishment, and to do
> so consistently and repeatedly requires enormous skill and sophistication in
> the particular techniques. Assessing the technological sophistication of
> the maker is interesting, and historically important, but history has shown
> that placing too much emphasis on the level of technological sophistication
> can subvert aesthetic appreciation and understanding.
>
> Consider this. Other than museum conservation, the beauty and power of
> Jomon pots or pre-dynastic Chinese or Egyptian pots or Precolumbian pots or
> contemporary Pueblo pots could in no way be increased by any modern
> industrial or technological processes.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
> Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
> Appalachian Center for Crafts
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
>
Gavin Stairs on wed 28 may 97
At 08:50 AM 27/05/97 EDT, Nancy L. Benco wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Hi,
>
> Just an after thought on the technological vs aesthetic debate.
>During pre-industrial times, pottery in general was embedded--primarily--
>within a functional context, that is, it was perceived as a tool to
>accomplish something; in some cases, this included its artistic or
>symbolic qualities.
I find this an interesting assertion. Presumably you consider the
"madonna" figurines functional because the are presumed to have had votive
significance to their makers. I would guess that on a similar basis any
figurative work, or even any abstraction, could be considered functional
because it must be presumed to have some function in the psyche of its
maker. This leaves precious little to be considered non-functional. If
this term is to hold any discriminative meaning, I suppose that it must be
reserved for a narrower range of functions than is comprehended in your
usage. For myself, I would consider functional only such work as is
actually intended to be used for a material function, as a container for
example. The closest analogue might be tool. I would not include
figurative and abstract work which effectively overlays that function so as
to obscure its functional aspect, nor any strictly figurative nor abstract
works. The boundary is clearly fuzzy: for example, is a lump of clay a
representation of a rock, or a paper weight? So a functional work
exhibition might be excused for including tea pots that no reasonably sane
person would use to serve tea. But votive figures? Well, to each his/her
own.
Gavin
=================================
Gavin Stairs
http://isis.physics.utoronto.ca/
Grimmer on wed 28 may 97
Nancy Benco wrote:
> In our contemporary Western world, however, we look at pottery
> with different eyes; although we use ceramics (mostly high fired) for many
> of the same purposes as in the past (eating, serving, storing food), we
> tend to look at "pottery" as I believe most of you practice it as fine
> art--for its beauty and aesthetic qualities. If it can be used in a
> microwave or dish washer, all the better; but for the most part, it's
> meant to be displayed and appreciated for its artistic aspects.
>
> Is this how you see it?
Hi,
Warning! Potentially controversial use of nomenclature and
semantics ahead. Donning Fiberfax suit.
In the contemporary Western world of pottery (ie not ceramic
sculpture) there are a few catagories (types) of pots, which I will
attempt to outline here.
Vessels: Strictly visual objects which hold as (one of) their
primary metaphor(s) the traditions and histories of the standard
pottery archetypes. May also quote freely from painting and
sculpture, among other things.
Functional Pots: Pottery intended for use as daily ware of special-
occaision ware. The over-riding concern is that the pot 'works.'
Aesthetics are also very important, _especially the aesthetic act of
using the pot_. Lovers of pottery will often display pots in the home
for their decorative qualities as well, which is ok. The over riding
intent of functionality is often _very_ important to the potter.
Decorative Pottery: This gets tricky. Help me out here, gang.
Pots which can be used for serving food or drink, but whose primary
intent "is to be displayed and appreciated for its artistic aspects."
This is a gray area. Many Functional Pots are really Decorative Pots.
That is, many decorative pots are called functional.
This statement is not a value judgement.
Nancy, I've enjoyed reading your posts to this list and am glad you
have not signed off.
steve grimmer
carterville illinois
The Shelfords on thu 29 may 97
> we
>tend to look at "pottery" as I believe most of you practice it as fine
>art--for its beauty and aesthetic qualities. If it can be used in a
>microwave or dish washer, all the better; but for the most part, it's
>meant to be displayed and appreciated for its artistic aspects.
>
> Is this how you see it?
>
>Nancy L. Benco
Hi Nancy -
Depends (if you've been reading this list for long!) on who you talk to.
Yes it is to be appreciated for both its artistic aspects and its
functionality. But "display" is usually connected with the "fine art /
museum / coffee-table-don't-touch" world. "Functional" is usually
associated being in regular use, though not necessarily out of sight.
Perhaps it could be said that one of the important aspects of pottery today
is the way it serves as a CONNECTION between the functional and the
artistic. It should be both. If not, it is either sculpture using
functional ware as a theme, or bad pottery (i.e. functional but not
artistic, or neither.) The whole POINT is that it should be both (IMO).
Would that be part of a fair definition of craft, if there's anyone left
out there who is still on this subject???
(And if anyone wants to argue the
fine-art-really-is-functional-because-it-makes-me-feel-something line,
somebody, I think it was Gavin, dealt with it nicely. Again IMNSHO, of
course).
- Veronica
on Thetis Island, where the eagles are nesting. I think the only other bird
call that comes close to the eagle's for sheer haunting beauty is the lake loon.
____________________________________________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
____________________________________________________________________________
| |
|
