Paulo Correia on fri 5 jun 98
I don't intent to hurt anybody's feelings, but...
First, we should review the article of L. E. Barringer, in Am. Ceram. Soc.
Bull., 30:13 (1951), where is proposed a definition of the several
"classes" of ceramic.
According to those definitions, Majolica would fall in the first category,
of Natural Ceramics, this means a body of natural clay without refinements.
Second, the term Kaolin was brought to Europe in the 18th century by the
Jesuit priest d'Entrecolles, who went to china to discover the secret of
porcelain manufacture. in the 13th, and if we have a body that withstands
cone 4, then probably we are using either a tri-axial body (clay,
quartz,feldspar), with Kaolin, or a natural stoneware, and being so this
doesn't sound like Majolica, does it?
And remember to reed the book Kilns, by Daniel Rhodes , or better, Cipriano
Picolpasso, and there we can learn which degree of temperature was achieved
on those kilns in the 13 to 16 century period.
Is crystal made without lead?
That would be plain glass, but would we call it crystal?
So why don't we make Majolica as it is supposed to be done? Why don't we
accept that to avoid pinholes we are supposed to use a "Coperta", and a
Tin-LEAD base glaze and fire at 1050C ?
Remember that Majolica was not supposed to be used, it was for "Aparato",
just for display, to show-off, like we can see in the painting of the
wedding banquet of D.Maria and Alexandre Farnise in Bruxels 18 November
1565.
Usually they used the silverware, and show-off the Majolica, because it was
very expensive, and was made for that purpose, to be beautiful and perfect,
it was an art, with much knowledge, and no, no and no, it was not like
copper reds. They knew what they were doing, they knew why we get better
copper reds on misty or rainy weather.
If someone is interested on ancient recepies of that period, just ask, but
remember tin-lead glazes, or NO MAJOLICA.
My kindest regards to all.
| |
|
