Lily Krakowski on thu 6 mar 03
Sorry to be insistent on this. But I think it very important. As more is
published on clay, as more books appear, as CLAYART and such acquire
archives, a clearer tighter vocabulary is needed. We cannot teeter on the
fence of being happy go-lucky mud slingers on the one hand, and precise,
scientifically oriented craftspeople on the other.
I was taught, and still believe (and teach) that glazes are best classified
by primary flux/content and firing temperature. This seems clear, precise,
and easy to put in lists. Calcium-borate c.6 glazes. Soda c.10 glazes. KNO
c.9 glazes. And so on. Where the minor flux plays an important color role
it should be included. This would apply to lithium, magnesium, and zinc...
I agree fully that celadon is a reduction effect in iron containing glazes.
It is NOT something achieved at c.04, or c.6 or cone whatever in an
oxidation fire through the clever use of stains. In fact nice celadons can
be achieved simply by replacing some of the clay in the glaze with red
There is nothing wrong with giving glazes descriptive names. Fine. But
that is not a way of really classifying them. BabyTush Rose is a lovely
shade. Very clear to visualize. But it is not a way to put a glaze in an
index or archive.
NOW WHY DID I PUT NCECA IN THE SUBJECT HEADING? Because so many of the best
and brightest among us will be there (Bon voyage) and perhaps it would be a
topic to discuss and bat around.....
P.O. Box #1
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....