Mike Gordon on tue 1 feb 05
Why feet on your pots??? I was taught that pots were like people. You
put a lip on the top like a human's lower lip, then the belly like we
all have, and then the foot which we all have below our knees, like the
Beatle's song. They also make great handles for dipping into glazes. As
for dishwashers it so easy to dip a dry sponge into each foot after
opening the washer, to remove any standing water, then let them air
dry. I make deep, undercut feet on everything! Mike Gordon
Carolynn Palmer on thu 3 feb 05
In a message dated 2/2/05 5:40:20 PM, clayart@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
<< Why feet on your pots??? >>
I was taught that part of the esthetic of a finished pot was a mystical
"lightness" perpetuated by the smallest possible footring, so that when viewed, the
pot appears to be floating above the surface it is sitting on.
I know this doesn't work on all things, like dinner plates, but it is always
in my mind when I am trimming.
One of those lessons that "stuck."
-Carolynn Palmer, Somerset Center, Michigan
william schran on fri 4 feb 05
Carolynn wrote:>I was taught that part of the esthetic of a finished
pot was a mystical
"lightness" perpetuated by the smallest possible footring, so that
when viewed, the
pot appears to be floating above the surface it is sitting on.<
I also appreciate the look of a small diameter foot ring, but at the
same time, if we are dealing with functional forms, then a compromise
is in order.
We must balance the esthetic - a small diameter pedestal (foot ring)
that's lifts the form off the surface, with the functional - a foot
ring of sufficient diameter that creates a stable foundation for the
form, such that it is not easily knocked over.
Bill
mel jacobson on sun 14 sep 08
we all know about shadows, lift...how the history
of the ring was to keep rough pots off polished tables.
so, that spoken of often...one thing is often missed:
how your fingers can grip the ring when you glaze.
it is a perfection handle. keeps your hands out of the
glaze.
why make a ring foot that you cannot get your fingers around?;
never made sense to me.
i design my feets to fits my hands.
same for big platters...a great two handed fit.
just my take.
i have seen potters swoon over ring feet...but the
pot is like crap.
it is the entire form that is taken as esthetic pleasure.
and a nice straight deep ring foot is always a pleasure to
see.
mel
if you make a hundred bowls with feet you cannot
get your hand around....you have increased your production
time by 80 percent.
from minnetonka:
website http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart site:
http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
Lee Love on sun 14 sep 08
Mel,
The way I learned to glaze, it is not necessary to limit the
diameter of the foot ring to you hand grasp. Most of the smaller
work is held with the index finger on the foot ring and the thumb on
the lip. When you set the cup down, you dab glaze where your thumb
is, from a drip of glaze on the glaze dipping hand.
Glazing larger things, the dominant hand is on the base or the
foot ring while to guiding hand is on the lip of the pot.
The Shokunin always complained about foot rings that were not
pronounced enough. But to be structurally/architecturally sound,
you have to balance the foot both visually and also so that it bears
the weight of the wall of a pot. So, on large things, the foot ring
might be much larger than the span of one hand.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Des & Jan Howard on mon 15 sep 08
Mel
For many years our standard practice was to finish all pots so they
could be held by the footrings while glazing. This included wide based
forms using finger & thumb hooks & fencing wire frames.
Some years ago I lost sight in one eye, the other going the same way,
problem now corrected sight in both eyes reasonable. Holding pots by the
footring requires depth perception to estimate angle the pot is in the
glaze or wax. I switched to using tongs. Dip the pot completely in the
glaze & wipe off excess on a damp low nap carpet piece. Actually
swimming pool surround worked best.
As you said nice, deep footrings.
or
Shell or zig-zag patterns from a twisted cutoff wire.
Plain flat bottoms on pots are an abomination,
& bleating production requirements is a copout
Des
mel jacobson wrote:
> i design my feets to fits my hands.
> same for big platters...a great two handed fit.
> just my take.
>
> i have seen potters swoon over ring feet...but the
> pot is like crap.
>
> it is the entire form that is taken as esthetic pleasure.
> and a nice straight deep ring foot is always a pleasure to
> see.
> mel
> if you make a hundred bowls with feet you cannot
> get your hand around....you have increased your production
> time by 80 percent.
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
Lynn Goodman Porcelain Pottery on wed 28 oct 09
Because it feels incomplete to you without it. I agree--I always have
a foot ring on my pieces. They feel unfinished without them.
Lynn
On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Jackson Gray wrote:
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one.
> It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the
> firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
> production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
> Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
> wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't
> care
> either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
> expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-
> wise
> and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
Lynn Goodman
Fine Porcelain Pottery
Cell 347-526-9805
www.lynngoodmanporcelain.com
Lee Love on wed 28 oct 09
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Jackson Gray wrot=
=3D
e:
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. =3DA0There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. =3DA0=
It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece.
There is very little difference between the time I take
with a footless wire cut bottom that I throw off the wheelhead, and a
footed pot I throw off the hump. The speed of the hump makes up for
the trimming time. And also, I always protect the spiral marks of
the twisted wire on the footless pot and then put slip inlay on it to
make it smooth and then scrape it so only the inlay is left.
So, sometimes it takes me longer to make an unfooted pot.
Aesthetics should determine how you finish a pot. It is your
choice as the maker.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Sumi von Dassow on wed 28 oct 09
I like a foot, too - it gives a little visual lift to the pot, like the
pot has its own little
pedestal - but I would point out that a foot can be an inconvenience in the
dishwasher, retaining dirty water if the pot is washed upside down (as a mu=
g
usually is). So some pottery shoppers might notice the foot ring when
the piece
is washed - and decide to buy one without a foot next time. So it might not
always be just a price issue.
Sumi
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
> production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
> Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
> wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
> either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
> expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
> and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
>
>
Jackson Gray on wed 28 oct 09
I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
Lee Love on thu 29 oct 09
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Dana & Chris Trabka wro=
=3D
te:
> Adding to the debate. I have seen "designed" pieces (fancy department sto=
=3D
re) without a footring; I
>liked them. So what is the purpose of the footring, elevate the pot off th=
=3D
e table? If so why? Does the
>footring supply a function; to the maker or to the user? What is the tradi=
=3D
tion of the footring (from >what era)? Is the footring necessary because th=
=3D
ose before us created pots with footrings?
As said so many times before, it is a matter of design. Some forms
look better with them.
But practically speaking, things thrown off the hump are less
likely to have spiral cracks if they are trimmed. But the necessity
of trimming hump thrown things depends upon your clay.
The other practical reason for handless cups that hold hot
drinks, is to give you a way to hold the lip and bottom without
burning your hands.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Sumi von Dassow on thu 29 oct 09
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> pots with walls that taper outwards towards the base, come straight down=
to the base, or
> taper in only slightly towards the base often or even usually do not bene=
fit
> from a foot ring....the only mugs that benefit from a foot ring are those=
that
> curve inwards fairly severely at the base. Any pot that curves inwards
> fairly severely at the base often benefits from a foot ring, as I mention=
ed
> in an earlier post, because without it, the pot tends to look heavy.
>
My thoughts exactly! I've been teaching a class I call "Put Your Best
Foot Forward" and the trimmed foot ring is only
one way to treat the base of a pot, mostly required on bowls which of
course "curve inwards severely" at the base.
For the forms which "taper outwards towards the base"" (like a nuclear
cooling tower) or "come straight down", I like
to cut an angle inwards right at the base, or use a notched rib to give
the bottom edge of the pot a stepped contour,
or a shape like it is sitting on a couple of narrow bracelets. Either
way you get the visual lift of a trimmed foot,
the impression of a pedestal. I think people think they have to trim
everything because it is hard to throw without
leaving a little extra clay at the base. Certainly beginners always have
to trim everything.
Sumi
Larry Kruzan on thu 29 oct 09
I trim everything, but there are pieces that only get the corner rounded an=
d
the bottom smoothed. Crocks, wine chillers and such have a heavier bottom
for strength, so I don't trim these much compared to bowls/cups/plates.
I really don't like the rough, cut and bump bottoms I see sometimes - I did
it too, but no more. For a while I didn't even trim coffee cups - but in my
defense I was selling them for $12, I needed to save a step in order to mak=
e
the price. Now my price is double and I take all the time I need to trim
everything.
Funny thing is that I seem to be selling more work at the higher price. On
the rare occasion I see a eyebrow raise at the price I take the time to
"educate the consumer". Explain just why a foot-ring lifts the cup off the
table, why the glaze is special, etc. The days of sitting back hoping a
customer buys are over - I get into the booth and SELL - every extra thing
you do adds to the value and makes selling easier.
Here is why it is important to me - I expect my customers to be thrilled
with their purchase, to know that I have worked hard to make the best piece
of pottery I can for them. Because THEY are critically important to me. The=
y
buy my materials, pay my bills and put food on my table - they deserve my
best and I'll give it to them. I may not be cheap but I can be bought!
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Jackson Gray
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:22 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: foot rings
I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
Snail Scott on thu 29 oct 09
On Oct 29, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Shaw Pottery wrote:
> Does adding a foot ring mean you really NEED to glaze inside the foot
> ring?
I don't think so. I just think Jackson's mugs
would look good that way - consistent with
the high degree of finish they show elsewhere.
-Snail
William & Susan Schran User on thu 29 oct 09
On 10/28/09 10:21 PM, "Jackson Gray" wrote:
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
> production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
> Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
> wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
> either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
> expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
> and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
The foot ring serves functional and esthetic purposes, lifting the form fro=
m
a surface and creating essentially a pedestal for the pot. Having a foot
ring allows more of the pot surface to be covered in glaze, better sealing
the clay surface that will lessen water penetration when pots are cleaned i=
n
a dishwasher.
Each potter has their own esthetic, learned and acquired over time.
Perhaps the simple elegant design of a porcelain bowl with graceful curve
screams for a prominent foot to lift it away from the table surface and sho=
w
off it's shape. Maybe the loosely thrown groggy stoneware vase cut from the
wheel with a wiggle wire and wacked a couple times with a paddle requires
only a slight curve at the edge of the foot to create a shadow line with no
other bottom treatment necessary.
The simple cup.
The cups I currently make have a rather deep foot ring.
The curved bottom calls to me for a pedestal.
But I also make cups with less positive/negative curves that get no foot
ring.
These cups simply have a curved transition from wall to bottom, bottom is
smoothed and the center is pressed in slightly concave to create the
finished bottom.
Were I doing salt or soda firing, I would not carve a foot in the pot.
The foot ring is an important esthetic/functional part of what you make.
You have decided this is important for you forms.
Tell potential customers why you take the time to finish your forms with a
foot ring.
Charge a price that you feel is fair for the amount of effort and time
you've put into the pot.
There will ALWAYS be others who charge less and there will ALWAYS be
customers seeking Walmart pricing.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Randall Moody on thu 29 oct 09
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:31 AM, William & Susan Schran User <
wschran@cox.net> wrote:
> On 10/28/09 10:21 PM, "Jackson Gray" wrote:
>
> > I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> > something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one.
>
My opinion is that it is up to the maker, the aesthetic and purpose of the
piece. Not all pieces need a foot.
--
Randall in Atlanta
Snail Scott on thu 29 oct 09
On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:21 PM, Jackson Gray wrote:
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the
> firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece...
I have Jackson's mug from last year's NCECA exchange.
It has an immaculately executed upper section made from
impressed textured slabs, glazed in a glossy rich blue,
and the bottom is unfooted, unglazed white stoneware,
slightly dished inward and a very small precise 'Jackpots'
signature with glaze in its recesses.
I do agree that though the foot wouldn't be inappropriate
for more rustic-looking work, the cleanness and sharpness
of her work asks for something more underneath.
Perhaps a round stamp just a bit smaller in diameter
than the bottom, to create a sharp glazeable recess with
minimal effort? It could even include a signature on it,
though it would have to be a bolder signature to show
through a glaze layer.
Alternatively, if you have a wheel, make the bottom slab
thick enough to trim a foot. A wheel-trimmed foot does
take time, but usually less than most handbuilt feet.
-Snail
Fred Parker on thu 29 oct 09
You are screwing around with a FDP -- a "fundamental Decision Point."=3D20
Everyone has to confront them. How they respond defines their work.
The foot ring is important to you because visually, it is the right thing=
=3D
to
do for your pots. Therefore you do it. It is the right thing to do for
most of mine also and when it is I do it. I am fine with mugs without fo=
=3D
ot
rings, but not so for tea bowls. I have made tea bowls without foot ring=
=3D
s
and they simply do not "measure up." Ditto my mugs WITH foot rings. I
tried making them and something just didn't work.
In the vast potters' conspiracy there are potters who will make their pot=
=3D
s
in accordance with strict self-imposed visual rules and standards -- you
might be one -- and there are those who, like politicians, seize on the
public's lack of visual sophistication to make a few shekels selling
mediocre pots. You see them at every craft fair and every "arts
destination" town in the mountains. Tired, boring, amateurish,
stereotypical. Many in the Public cannot tell the difference. It's stil=
=3D
l a
souvenir from their vacation trip. The potter's FDP led him or her to ta=
=3D
ke
the easier or faster route...
There are also those who invest more of their own time making pots that m=
=3D
eet
their own higher standards, and consequently accept a lower return on
investment for the privilege. Still, many in the Public cannot understan=
=3D
d
the difference -- but the potter does.
This has always been a significant determinant of Art and Craft -- the
makers' response to inevitable FDP's. By the way, this is a fundamental
Truth that cannot be disputed by anyone...
Fred Parker=3D20=3D20=3D20=3D20
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:21:34 -0700, Jackson Gray =
=3D
wrote:
SNIP
Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
>expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
>and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
KATHI LESUEUR on thu 29 oct 09
On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Jackson Gray wrote:
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have
> one. It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the
> firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
> production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
> Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
> wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't
> care
> either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
> expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-
> wise
> and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
>
I have pots with both footrings and without. It depends on the piece,
not the price. My baking dishes do not have footrings. I think they
interfere with use in an oven. My mugs don't have footrings. I think
they are better without it. My very small ( 3" dia.) $8 bowls used
with my sushi sets have footrings. The form cries out for it. I think
having or not having a footring has nothing to do with price or skill
but with whether or not the piece "needs" a footring.
KATHI LESUEUR
http://www.lesueurclaywork.com
Randall Moody on thu 29 oct 09
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Fred Parker wrote:
> You are screwing around with a FDP -- a "fundamental Decision Point."
> Everyone has to confront them. How they respond defines their work.
>
> The foot ring is important to you because visually, it is the right thing
> to
> do for your pots. Therefore you do it. It is the right thing to do for
> most of mine also and when it is I do it. I am fine with mugs without fo=
ot
> rings, but not so for tea bowls. I have made tea bowls without foot ring=
s
> and they simply do not "measure up." Ditto my mugs WITH foot rings. I
> tried making them and something just didn't work.
>
> In the vast potters' conspiracy there are potters who will make their pot=
s
> in accordance with strict self-imposed visual rules and standards -- you
> might be one -- and there are those who, like politicians, seize on the
> public's lack of visual sophistication to make a few shekels selling
> mediocre pots. You see them at every craft fair and every "arts
> destination" town in the mountains. Tired, boring, amateurish,
> stereotypical. Many in the Public cannot tell the difference. It's stil=
l
> a
> souvenir from their vacation trip. The potter's FDP led him or her to ta=
ke
> the easier or faster route...
>
> There are also those who invest more of their own time making pots that
> meet
> their own higher standards, and consequently accept a lower return on
> investment for the privilege. Still, many in the Public cannot understan=
d
> the difference -- but the potter does.
>
> This has always been a significant determinant of Art and Craft -- the
> makers' response to inevitable FDP's. By the way, this is a fundamental
> Truth that cannot be disputed by anyone...
>
> Fred Parker
>
>
Fred, I may be reading this wrong but your post appears to be saying that
not putting a foot ring on a pot is a "faster, easier route", as in not wel=
l
thought out and considered and that those that don't put a foot ring on
their pots are making decision on a lower standard. Could you clarify?
--
Randall in Atlanta
Fred Parker on thu 29 oct 09
Hey, Randall:
Not at all. If it reads that way attribute it to my communication skills=
=3D
.
What I AM saying is that every potter decides what his pots will be. Som=
=3D
e
decide in favor of meticulous detailing; others are driven by speed. Oft=
=3D
en,
when speed is the driving force other attributes suffer. Often, not alwa=
=3D
ys.
Adding a foot ring generally takes more time than wire cutting alone, so =
=3D
the
preponderance of pottery I have seen with a foot ring generally seems mor=
=3D
e
"complete" than those without. Maybe it's all opinion...
Fred Parker
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:26:40 -0400, Randall Moody =3D
M>
wrote:
>Fred, I may be reading this wrong but your post appears to be saying tha=
=3D
t
>not putting a foot ring on a pot is a "faster, easier route", as in not =
=3D
well
>thought out and considered and that those that don't put a foot ring on
>their pots are making decision on a lower standard. Could you clarify?
>--
>Randall in Atlanta
Cathi Newlin on thu 29 oct 09
Vessels do feel more complete to me with a foot, though I don't always thin=
k
that means a ring.
Sometimes I just use my thumb to make small feet on my pieces, or add a
couple of simple parrallel (sp) extruded feet to the bottom.
I do prefer that small lift it gives the piece, and it does help to give m=
e
a place both visually and physically to stop my glaze.
I think that aesthetic has developed in my as I have grown as a potter.
Years ago, when all I did was hand build, it didn't really occur to me.
Cathi Newlin, Angels Camp, Ca
cathi@box49.com
box49@caltel.com
cathi@SquarePegArts.com
-------------------------------
California Boxers in Need:
http://CaliforniaBoxer.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jackson Gray"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: [Clayart] foot rings
> I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
> something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
> is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
> must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
> so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
> production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
> Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
> wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
> either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
> expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
> and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?
>
Shaw Pottery on thu 29 oct 09
snip>
>Perhaps a round stamp just a bit smaller in diameter
>than the bottom, to create a sharp glazeable recess with
>minimal effort? It could even include a signature on it,
>though it would have to be a bolder signature to show
>through a glaze layer.
snip> -Snail
And there is another point! Do footed pieces always need to be glazed
inside the foot? Many potters sign on the bottom. Signatures don't
show well through glaze.
Obviously those without a foot ring do not get glazed. So there is
the question...
Does adding a foot ring mean you really NEED to glaze inside the foot
ring? For looks, for structural reasons?
Thanks,
Rita and Joe
--
http://shawpottery.com/
threereeds1 on thu 29 oct 09
Hi Randall,
Just the opposite, I think. Seemed like Fred said that cost
issues and time were of minimal consequence. The correct
completeness of the pot should be the only issue. I agree.
Be well,
Tom King
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: foot rings
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Fred Parker wrote:
>
>> You are screwing around with a FDP -- a "fundamental Decision Point."
>> Everyone has to confront them. How they respond defines their work.
>>
>> The foot ring is important to you because visually, it is the right thin=
g
>> to
>> do for your pots. Therefore you do it. It is the right thing to do for
>> most of mine also and when it is I do it. I am fine with mugs without
>> foot
>> rings, but not so for tea bowls. I have made tea bowls without foot
>> rings
>> and they simply do not "measure up." Ditto my mugs WITH foot rings. I
>> tried making them and something just didn't work.
>>
>> In the vast potters' conspiracy there are potters who will make their
>> pots
>> in accordance with strict self-imposed visual rules and standards -- you
>> might be one -- and there are those who, like politicians, seize on the
>> public's lack of visual sophistication to make a few shekels selling
>> mediocre pots. You see them at every craft fair and every "arts
>> destination" town in the mountains. Tired, boring, amateurish,
>> stereotypical. Many in the Public cannot tell the difference. It's
>> still
>> a
>> souvenir from their vacation trip. The potter's FDP led him or her to
>> take
>> the easier or faster route...
>>
>> There are also those who invest more of their own time making pots that
>> meet
>> their own higher standards, and consequently accept a lower return on
>> investment for the privilege. Still, many in the Public cannot
>> understand
>> the difference -- but the potter does.
>>
>> This has always been a significant determinant of Art and Craft -- the
>> makers' response to inevitable FDP's. By the way, this is a fundamental
>> Truth that cannot be disputed by anyone...
>>
>> Fred Parker
>>
>>
> Fred, I may be reading this wrong but your post appears to be saying that
> not putting a foot ring on a pot is a "faster, easier route", as in not
> well
> thought out and considered and that those that don't put a foot ring on
> their pots are making decision on a lower standard. Could you clarify?
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
>
Vince Pitelka on thu 29 oct 09
Jackson Gray wrote:
"I'd like to take a poll on the subject of foot rings. There is
something in me that says even the most humble pot should have one. It
is an extra step when handbuilding - and another place where the join
must be worked to keep the line smooth and joined throughout the firing,
so it adds considerably to the time for each piece. I have seen many
production potters (and some with less production) leave it off.
Granted the typical pottery shopper wouldn't notice if there was or
wasn't a foot ring until washing the piece - and probably wouldn't care
either way. Except that I imagine the pot without a foot ring is less
expensive. And maybe that is what bugs me. I can't compete price-wise
and the customer doesn't care. So why is it so important to me?"
Hi Jackson -
If you like foot rings on all your pots, that is fine. After a lot of
observation and thought over the years it is my opinion that pots with wall=
s
that taper outwards towards the base, come straight down to the base, or
taper in only slightly towards the base often or even usually do not benefi=
t
from a foot ring. Now, that depends on the pot, certainly, and in the case
of a fine porcelain vase, there are good reasons to use a foot ring on a po=
t
that tapers inwards at all. The only time I would put a foot ring on the
other two is if I was just going to trim away the inner recess, and then cu=
t
openings in the remaining ring to create the impression that the pot is
standing up on legs. That is a beautiful look for a pot where the walls
come straight down or taper outwards to a larger base.
In my opinion, the only mugs that benefit from a foot ring are those that
curve inwards fairly severely at the base. Any pot that curves inwards
fairly severely at the base often benefits from a foot ring, as I mentioned
in an earlier post, because without it, the pot tends to look heavy.
One of my favorite pot shapes for mugs is the traditional flagon or "stein"
shape that tapers outwards to a base slightly larger than the rim, and I do
not see any advantage at all to a foot ring on such a pot. In fact, I thin=
k
that a foot ring on such a pot usually looks and feels unnecessary.
Some posts have implied that rougher, more gestural pots do not need foot
rings, while finely finished pots need them. There's no sense to that at
all. Some very finely-finished pots are just fine without a foot ring.
Many of the potters who make the most beautiful rough, gestural pots often
put foot rings on them, and the results speak for themselves.
There are no easy answers or universal guidelines, but it is important that
each potter ask themselves why they do or don't put foot rings on certain
forms, and to thoroughly investigate the range of possible bottom
treatments. A well-made stein-shaped mug with a wired-off bottom and a
rolled edge can be a real thing of beauty.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Dana & Chris Trabka on thu 29 oct 09
Adding to the debate. I have seen "designed" pieces (fancy department =3D
store) without a footring; I liked them. So what is the purpose of the =3D
footring, elevate the pot off the table? If so why? Does the footring =3D
supply a function; to the maker or to the user? What is the tradition of =
=3D
the footring (from what era)? Is the footring necessary because those =3D
before us created pots with footrings?
Chris
Philip Poburka on thu 29 oct 09
Just as an observation generally -
Rightly Sharp Tools, and correct technique, Clay at right stage for it,
Trimming is done with alacrity even on a 'slow' RPM Kick Wheel.
Dull Tools, indifferent technique, indifferent Clay state, Trimming is
slowed, and conflicted, even on a 'fast' Wheel.
This is possibly more the issue in practice, than generalizing about Time
spent Trimming.
Just as time spent Throwing would be, of one is laboring a few Bowls an
hour, verses, rows of Wareboards filling up per-hour, of the freshly Thrown=
.
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "threereeds1"
> Hi Randall,
>
> Just the opposite, I think. Seemed like Fred said that cost
> issues and time were of minimal consequence. The correct
> completeness of the pot should be the only issue. I agree.
>
> Be well,
>
> Tom King
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randall Moody"
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Fred Parker wrote:
>>
>>> You are screwing around with a FDP -- a "fundamental Decision Point."
>>> Everyone has to confront them. How they respond defines their work.
>>>
>>> The foot ring is important to you because visually, it is the right
>>> thing
>>> to
>>> do for your pots. Therefore you do it. It is the right thing to do fo=
r
>>> most of mine also and when it is I do it. I am fine with mugs without
>>> foot
>>> rings, but not so for tea bowls. I have made tea bowls without foot
>>> rings
>>> and they simply do not "measure up." Ditto my mugs WITH foot rings. I
>>> tried making them and something just didn't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipt<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
bill lee on fri 30 oct 09
Deborah, throwing on the wheel isn't the only way to make bowls and mugs. T=
=3D
here are a lot of handbuilders who make interesting and functional mugs and=
=3D
other pottery. Historically speaking, isn't the wheel a more recent develo=
=3D
pment and handbuilding the original way of pottery making?
Bill Lee, Clay Artist=3D20
(865) 566 2710www.billleeclay.com=3D20
www.southernhighlandguild.org/billlee=3DA0workshops available
---Deborah Human wrote:
I'll worry about foot rings when and if I ever throw a decent pot.
Maybe I'm just meant to be a hand builder and to buy my mugs and bowls
from others.
Deb Thuman
http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=3D3D5888059
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Deb-Thumans-Art-Page/167529715986
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
jeanne wood on fri 30 oct 09
I had always considered a trimmed foot ring to be part of good craftsmanshi=
p.
When I began to make reproduction Medieval pottery as a part of my output, =
the lack of trimmed feet on the originals was obvious and I had a terribly =
difficult time omitting them. For awhile I even trimmed foot rings when the=
y shouldn't have been there and the results were dorky at best.
Now for my Medieval work I don't trim foot rings. This means I have to be m=
ore aware of the thickness of the base when throwing.
-Jeanne W.
In Idaho
Deborah Thuman on fri 30 oct 09
I'll worry about foot rings when and if I ever throw a decent pot.
Maybe I'm just meant to be a hand builder and to buy my mugs and bowls
from others.
Deb Thuman
http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=3D5888059
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Deb-Thumans-Art-Page/167529715986
| |
|
