Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 28 mar 04
Dear Friends,
Mel says,
<<... just think a bit about physics, and screw art when learning to
throw. it is skill. physics. and more skill...>>
Perhaps now is the time for Mel to define the mechanics of the process
for us. To analyse for us the physical relationships between engine
power, clay weight, rates of revolution, moments of inertia, modulus
of plasticity and so on, especially those Forces concerned with the
initial process of centring.
My own summation is that Mel is right. If people in the past had used
Physical knowledge as it became available in course of history we
would apply our hands to the top of the clay when we commence to
centre. Instead, we are generally advised to push forcefully inwards
at the base across the head of the wheel to get the clay to rise and
turn concentrically with the axis of rotation.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
wayneinkeywest on sun 28 mar 04
Ivor:
While at NCECA I happened to be in the exhibition
hall. As anyone who has been there can tell you,
various booths have electric wheels set up for
throwing, to demonstrate tools, or a clay body,
or the wheel etc.
I just happened to be in the area of one of these
booths when a kid (couldn't have been more than
20, maybe 21) sat down at one of the wheels.
Threw a 25 pound lump of clay on the wheel, got it
spinning, slapped it Wham! Wham WHAM! three
or four times side to side with his hand, and I'll be
dipped in tenmoku if that lump wasn't centered.
No pushing or pulling, no endless angst. On top of
that "centered" lump he then throws another 25 pound
lump, and again slaps it from side to side a few times. ]
Centered, done!
That being accomplished, he took his entire fist and
punched it down into the center of this rapidly spinning
lump, and proceeds (in one pull!!) to raise a cylinder
about 2 feet tall.
A few more pulls, and I'm looking at a three foot tall
vase about 1/2 inch thick, diameter of about 18 inches.
Glorious.
I stood there watching, completely stunned, and got
the courage to go ask him how he did that. He looked
up at me and grinned. "No fear...if it doesn't work, I'll start
over"
Physical memory knowledge, physics of what we do
notwithstanding...sometimes you just need to go for it,
and not analyze it to death.
That kid was a perfect example.
And I am still in awe.
Wayne Seidl
> Dear Friends,
> Mel says,
> <<... just think a bit about physics, and screw art when learning
to
> throw. it is skill. physics. and more skill...>>
> Perhaps now is the time for Mel to define the mechanics of the
process
> for us. To analyse for us the physical relationships between
engine
> power, clay weight, rates of revolution, moments of inertia,
modulus
> of plasticity and so on, especially those Forces concerned with
the
> initial process of centring.
> My own summation is that Mel is right. If people in the past had
used
> Physical knowledge as it became available in course of history we
> would apply our hands to the top of the clay when we commence to
> centre. Instead, we are generally advised to push forcefully
inwards
> at the base across the head of the wheel to get the clay to rise
and
> turn concentrically with the axis of rotation.
> Best regards,
> Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
>
>
____________________________________________________________________
__________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 29 mar 04
Dear Wayne and Lee
Yes, I know pots are constructed in that way. It has a simplicity to
it that is disarming. Should I wish to throw 25 or 50 lbs of clay I
would use that technique, it is so efficient and overcomes the hassles
of making separate parts.
So why is seldom described in the books we are sold? Why is it not
introduced early to us in our careers as potters? After all, it is at
the heart of throwing from the "Hump" and that is a process which
exploits classical mechanistic Physics ("Moments of Couples").
Lee tells us "...If it were simply physics, then you might as well let
the machines rule the world....". Now I find that to be an incongruent
statement since it ignores the mechanistic nature of Human forms. Our
bodies would be useless if we did not have a series of levers and
pivots or the control systems of the human brain. Regardless of
esoteric knowledge related to oriental philosophy perusal of recent
text about Biomechanics might prove enlightening to those who regard
the Science of our Craft as being inconsequential when discussing the
Potter's Wheel.
Why let people put their health and well being at risk by telling or
showing them to wedge elbow against thigh or hip? Is it because those
who teach are ignorant or because they are knowledgable?
I leave that value judgement to others.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Lee Love on mon 29 mar 04
wayneinkeywest wrote:
>Physical memory knowledge, physics of what we do
>notwithstanding...sometimes you just need to go for it,
>and not analyze it to death.
>
>
I agree Wayne: If it were simply physics, then you might as well let
the machines rule the world.
In the best work, there is a balanced merging of knowledge,
skill, and intuition.
One way to integrate our rational and intuitive sides is with the
help of our breathing. Have you ever found yourself holding your
breath when you are concentrating or frightened by something? When
you stop breathing, you loose both strength and also the ability to
observe the exterior environment. Martial artists know this very well.
There is an excellent book on the subject by Katsuki Sekida ,
Zen Training can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0834801140/103-3862842-4439847?v=glance
Sekida explains breathing and meditation from a physiological
(scientific) perspective.
The diaphragm is the largest muscle in the body.
Unlike most other processes, breathing is normally automatic, but we can
control it if we are conscious of it. Because of this fact, it has a
mediating function that can connect the discursive and intuitive aspects
of our minds.
The discursive planning should happen in the practice and before
the application of the skill. Training gives the body the knowledge
it needs. During the application, it is good to let the mind get out
of the way. I remember hearing about Yogi Berra being asked by a
reporter what he thought about when he was getting ready to swing at a
pitch. I can't remember his exact words, but he said something like
"It is impossible to think and hit at the same time."
-- Lee In Mashiko http://mashiko.us
Lee Love on mon 29 mar 04
Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
>the machines rule the world....". Now I find that to be an incongruent
>statement since it ignores the mechanistic nature of Human forms. Our
>bodies would be useless if we did not have a series of levers and
>pivots or the control systems of the human brain. Regardless of
>esoteric knowledge related to oriental philosophy perusal of recent
>text about Biomechanics might prove enlightening to those who regard
>the Science of our Craft as being inconsequential when discussing the
>Potter's Wheel.
>
>
Ivor, we all have different ways of learning. Because of my
dyslexia, I always learn best by doing, rather than hearing an
explanation about how to do it. This was very true for me in both
sports and martial arts. I have to feel the physical process with
my body to learn it. Others learn differently.
Folks figured out how to work the potter's wheel for millennia,
without knowing Western physics. The best pots ever made were made
without this knowledge. We tend to think only "We" (not the Queen's
We), have the right view about how the world works. This is yet to be
seen.
Our modern western culture is enamored with its
approach. We are immersed in our paradigm so we don't know how
subjective it is. Making proclamations about the objective over the
subjective totally overlooks how subjective this point of view actually
is. This is what causes us trouble in the world, with cultures that
don't accept our perspective on reality.
>Why let people put their health and well being at risk by telling or
>showing them to wedge elbow against thigh or hip? Is it because those
>who teach are ignorant or because they are knowledgable?
>I leave that value judgement to others.
>
>
Yes, knowledge is important. Doesn't matter how we label
it, we can always learn from those who have come before us, especially
from folks who have made their life of the work.
-- Lee In Mashiko http://mashiko.us
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 30 mar 04
Dear Lee,
There is a belief that the "Laws of Physics" came into existence with
the " Big Bang", that they have been present from the inception of the
"Universe". If you accept that premise then cultural differences
define the distinction between those who those who seek to discover
and use those laws and those who choose to remain in ignorance of
their existence. The Universe behaves the way it does without our
intervention.
Perhaps it matters not a whit how learning occurs provided that you
become aware. But what is learned via Experience or from teachers is
always open to criticism to be validated or refuted. Many things
published or spoken of as "True Facts" by knowledgable people are, on
examination "Wrong".
Strange thing about the potter's wheel is that unless there has been a
continuous culture, and perhaps Kelly in Ohio will expand on this
concept, we do no know how it was done in times past. So we invent
anew by trial and error, saying we "are learning for ourselves" .
Those skills and that knowledge become the new tradition.
I am aware of an instance where a throwing process was lost, or
abandoned, several centuries ago. When used, the hands apply force to
clay in a way which does not stress the frame of the potter. As a
method, it contradicts all throwing instructions I have ever read or
have been taught. Logically it should not work. But the Laws of
Physics ensure that it does.
I perceive that you are trying to compel me to believe what is derived
from Intuition and introspection is superior to that which is deduced
from weighing and measuring and counting and sensing.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
| |
|
