Lili Krakowski on sun 3 jul 05
Lee wrote:
"Lili, you need to read more books. And do we really
>need to demand that all knowledge conform to our way of doing things?
>We can really learn a lot, if we are flexible and look at different
>cultures with an open mind. It is sometimes difficult to do when you
>live in the world's dominant culture.'
Lee: I took no offence. I agree. I need to read more books. There are
books in Hungarian, in Chinese... all sorts of books not translated from the
original in languages I do not know.
You said that. You are right. Now what?
To the best of my knowledge the greatest number of books about clay
published and available today are in English. As you know people who study
this stuff have argued that English is/will be the dominant language in the
world not because of any "cultural" dominance, but because it is so elastic
and flexible a language, with such an elastic and flexible grammar.
So there are people for whom English is a second--likelier third or fourth
language, since so many people learn first the local dialect, second the
regional dialect, then the official language, and only then English--and I
think it behooves us in our role as teachers to make things easy for them.
I did not say that when you are in Japan you should introduce the word
"throwing" as a borrowing. I said that in English "throwing" refers to --as
Vince inter al. said (I am hiding here behind Vince's pigtail! ) -- to the
forming of a pot on a wheel turning with some speed and torque to help the
hands shape the pot. THIS IS NOT putting down other ways of forming pots,
even on slow moving turntables etc., it is simply a definition based on a
description.
I do not remotely want "all knowledge [to]conform to our way of doing
things."
You are misunderstanding or misreading me. All I ask , never demand, is
that words be used with maximum precision, so that those not as familiar
with the word/term can look it up, and know what is being talked about.
A lovely Saki story (You all do remember Saki?) is about a middle European
duchess whose maid is doing her hair for the evening gala. All this in the
middle of endless anarchist bombings and assassinations. (The story
resonates today, I just realized.) The duchess asks about the desert .
And the maid replies: "Une bombe, Madame." Upon which the Duchess falls in
a faint, and awakens totally insane forever.
As I said in a second post, I see no reason why, if a particular place has a
particular technique for which we have no term, we should not use its term.
By all means TEACH US.
PLEASE give me/us an explanation of why "throwing" should be stretched to
meaninglessness, rather than our learning a new word.
I for one am more than annoyed that Raku has now been distorted totally from
what it described originally. One now no longer knows what one is talking
about. Not really.
This has nothing to do with looking at other cultures with an open mind, and
I do not for a moment believe in the existence of "[a] world's dominant
culture."
I do not see what defining throwing in a specific way has to do with this,
anyway. It seems to me that asking for, welcoming, words from other
languages that describe the way certain things are done in other cultures,
is as open-minded as one can get without getting drafty.
I really do not want to take up the list's time, and try Mel's patience
about this. If anyone wants to discuss it, please, off list.
Pace, shalom--and foreign words like that!
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Vince Pitelka on sun 3 jul 05
Lili said:
> PLEASE give me/us an explanation of why "throwing" should be stretched to
> meaninglessness, rather than our learning a new word.
Thank-you Lili! Why I couldn't say this in such a sensible and direct way?
Lee, how about it?
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Kate Johnson on sun 3 jul 05
Vince wrote:
> Lili said:
>> PLEASE give me/us an explanation of why "throwing" should be stretched to
>> meaninglessness, rather than our learning a new word.
>
> Thank-you Lili! Why I couldn't say this in such a sensible and direct
> way?
'cause she's our Lili, who cuts to the chase as she perceives it!
> Lee, how about it?
Perhaps that's how they refer to the process in that culture? It sounded as
if the Japanese word for throwing/turning was indeed the same meaning, so my
guess is that though it may be semantics to one degree or another, Lee's
just using the term he's used to to describe the process in the culture he's
living in.
Or in the immortal words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
In another life, I'm a writer. I love words, and using them correctly and
precisely, and I try hard to get my meaning across as clearly as
possible...but I also love how elastic words are, and how they change and
evolve over time as they sift into the lower (or upper!) classes, cross
cultural or religious barriers, are applied in playful and imaginative ways,
and enter our lexicon in whole new forms.
If you get a chance, look at Francis Gross's "A Classical Dictionary of the
Vulgar Tongue."
http://www.beardbooks.com/a_classical_dictionary_of_the_vulgar_tongue.html
It's from the 18th C., and even the word "vulgar" doesn't necessarily mean
that, then...it was more the counterpart of "common," popular usage, or
slang. (Granted, some entries are quite vulgar indeed, in ANY century.)
There are a lot of words used in that period that are quite different
today...it's a hoot seeing the differences, as well as the similarities.
And as I said before, I'd love to know how what we do with clay and a wheel
got to be known as "throwing," if it weren't for that etymology. I can
throw a party, or BS, or a fit, but unless I'm enjoying our game of
toss-the-clay-wad-and-see-if-it-sticks, I'm hard pressed to see what I do at
the wheel as throwing. (That comes AFTER, when I screw it up.)
Yep, I know that's what it's called, no problem. I call it that too. It
just doesn't seem all that logical, and I'm in my contemplative mode, just
wondering why...
Doesn't seem worth getting worked up about, either way.
Best--
Kate Johnson
graphicart@epsi.net
http://www.cathyjohnson.info/
Art, History, Nature and More at Cathy Johnson's Cafepress--
http://www.cafepress.com/cathy_johnson/
Graphics/Fine Arts Press--
http://www.epsi.net/graphic/
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 3 jul 05
Hi Lee,
This 'Brutus' magazine, the Japanese corallary to Gee-Que...
Now, is this the same 'Brutus' from those old 'Popeye' Cartoons we all knew
and loved?
Or...?
Just curious...
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Love"
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
> For example, the latest issue of Brutus, which is sort of a
> Japanese version of GQ, is devoted to the work of Shoji Hamada.
> Can you imagine a mainstream Men's magazine in the States like GQ or
> Esquire doing something like this? My friend Euan has a photo of a
> tea bowl in the Hamada issue of Brutus, in a section where folks are
> asked to show and tell about their favorite bowl.
<<<<<<< again >>>>>>>>
> Lee Love
> in Mashiko, Japan
Rick Hamelin on sun 3 jul 05
The 1820's Daniel Webster's Dictionary explained "throwing" as descending from the middle English word "throung" that meant to "to turn, wind or twist". Thus, throwing a ball is actually the motion of the shoulder and not the tossing of the ball. This is possibly the root explanation of why there is a difference of throwing and turning a pot. Especially when you consider that the industrial techique of lathe-turning a pot that had been slip-cast as possibly being either superior (in the eyes of society, the designer and technician) or sophisticated compared to the meager country potter who simply "throws" wares.
Did you know that the extruder or dod box was known as a "stupid" in the latter 18th century in England. Our perception of word meaning only suits our interpretation.
Rick
"Many a wiser men than I hath
gone to pot." 1649
jesse hull on sun 3 jul 05
Rick,
where did you get that info? It's humorous and
interesting - I'd like to get the full text if it's
available.
~jessehull.
www.jessehull.com
www.latticestructures.com
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 3 jul 05
Hi Rick,
...interesting mention...
Not to be confused with 'throe' of course...
Mr. Webster was certainly a careful fellow, too.
Yet the term 'throw', in use, also, was long applied to things or motions
not 'turned' or 'twisted' at all
When one throws something, a rock say, it is hard to find a turning or
twisting motion to suppose is the salient part that the term is in reference
to. Unless we suppose thr sock to rotate in the air, which it tends to do of
course...
Kitchen counter Pumps, fallen from fashion now, had handles one actuated in
an up-and-down motion, to bring Water 'up' so it might cascade down out of
the spout into a bowl or pitcher or whatever. The distance such a handle
would travel was also known as it's 'throw', and so too with many other
things which went to-and-fro, or, up-and-down.
I think there are more than one meaning to the term, or more then one
application of it's reason.
This whole matter of Turning slip-cast things on Lathes ( in case you had
not guessed by now! ) is new to me, and surpriseing somewhat.
I always thought the parting lines were dealt with useing a little scraper
and moist chammois or the likes, and, still, I wonder then what do they do
about those parting lines inacessable when mounted in the Chuck?
Have they then a second chucl into which the piece is held by it's other
end?
I wonder also, naively of course, why one might not Jigger something in a
(demountable, partable ) form, where the form actually IS what one wishes
the finished piece to be? If one is concerned about a uniformity of product
in a hi-production context? But then, again, those pesky parting-lines will
be there to be dealt with somehow...
...sigh...
You mention -
> "Did you know that the extruder or dod box was known as a "stupid" in the
latter 18th century in England."
No...I did not...
>" Our perception of word meaning only suits our interpretation."
Well, yes...there is little choice in that matter! - and too, it evidently
suited the interpretation of whoever had used the word for us to wonder
about, or be confused by, so far as what they meant, also.
It does not mean they used the word 'correctly'...however intricate it may
be to decide what a correct use is...
It gets complicated!
Good fun tho'...to wonder on...
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hamelin"
> The 1820's Daniel Webster's Dictionary explained "throwing" as descending
from the middle English word "throung" that meant to "to turn, wind or
twist". Thus, throwing a ball is actually the motion of the shoulder and not
the tossing of the ball. This is possibly the root explanation of why there
is a difference of throwing and turning a pot. Especially when you consider
that the industrial techique of lathe-turning a pot that had been slip-cast
as possibly being either superior (in the eyes of society, the designer and
technician) or sophisticated compared to the meager country potter who
simply "throws" wares.
> Did you know that the extruder or dod box was known as a "stupid" in the
latter 18th century in England. Our perception of word meaning only suits
our interpretation.
> Rick
> "Many a wiser men than I hath
> gone to pot." 1649
Lee Love on mon 4 jul 05
On 2005/07/03 23:40:34, mlkrakowski@citlink.net wrote:
>
> To the best of my knowledge the greatest number of books about clay
> published and available today are in English.
I doubt it Lili. If you visited my local book store here in podunk
Mashiko, you would see many more books on pottery than are available in
the States. The numbers of periodicals specifically related to clay
are numerous too. Not to mention all the writing about clay in
non-clay related books.
For example, the latest issue of Brutus, which is sort of a
Japanese version of GQ, is devoted to the work of Shoji Hamada.
Can you imagine a mainstream Men's magazine in the States like GQ or
Esquire doing something like this? My friend Euan has a photo of a
tea bowl in the Hamada issue of Brutus, in a section where folks are
asked to show and tell about their favorite bowl.
There is also a special issue currently out on the
Japanese-American sculptor Isamu Noguchi. A while back, the same
gentlemen's periodical did a special issue on Soetsu Yanagi.
I will scan some photos from the Brutus on Hamada, so you can
see. It is pretty awesome.
>As you know people who study
> this stuff have argued that English is/will be the dominant language
in the
> world not because of any "cultural" dominance, but because it is so
elastic
> and flexible a language, with such an elastic and flexible grammar.
It'd be great if we got people translating more foreign
language clay related material into English. You know, the French do
a lot in the area and we English speakers are oblivious to it. I was
not aware of the great work being done there until Genevieve lent me a
stack of French ceramic periodicals. She did this when I asked her
what she knew about French Jaspe' ware. She learned clay in France
from a prominent earthenware potter there.
As the middle class grows in China, I hope we get more
writing about clay from there. I want to read what is written by
the Koreans too.
All that aside, it is not really a matter of language. It
is a matter of experience. Work is thrown here on banding wheels.
It is how they teach the kids in Mashiko Elementary school. They use
the same heavy banding wheel that I have in my studio that has holes
where you put the throwing stick. As I said, not all banding wheels
are made equal. You couldn't do this on a cheap amaco banding wheel.
And your clay from an American clay company cannot be thrown on these
wheels out of the bag. The clay has to be very soft. It was one of
Hamada's secrets of where the life in his work came from.
One of Jean's young private class english students,
Takumi, learn how to throw on a banding wheel like mine from a wife of
one of my fellow apprentices (she was the adviser of the Mashiko
elementary school pottery club.)
I throw on the same kind of banding wheel occasionally, not
because it is easy, but because it is a good way to improve skill, by
throwing without the help of inertia you get on a kick wheel.
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
Des & Jan Howard on mon 4 jul 05
Phil
A "froe", (pronounced "throe" by my Dad), was the tool I was taught to
split shingles, shakes & droppers with.
Des
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>...interesting mention...
>
>Not to be confused with 'throe' of course...
>
>
>
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
LUE NSW 2850
Australia
Ph/Fax 02 6373 6419
http://www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
Lee Love on mon 4 jul 05
On 2005/07/04 6:06:34, claytyme@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rick,
> where did you get that info? It's humorous and
> interesting - I'd like to get the full text if it's
> available.
Jesse, any etymological dictionary will get you started.
Here is one online: http://www.etymonline.com/
You can have your answers. I prefer questions! check this out:
throw (v.)
"to project, propel," c.1300, from O.E. þrawan "to twist, turn
writhe" (pt. þreow, pp. þrawen), from P.Gmc. *thræ- (cf. O.S. thraian,
M.Du. dræyen, Du. draaien, O.H.G. draen, Ger. drehen "to turn, twist;"
not found in Scand. or Gothic), from PIE *tere- "to rub, turn, rub by
turning, bore" (cf. Skt. turah "wounded, hurt," Gk. teirein "to rub, rub
away," L. terere "to rub, thresh, grind, wear away," O.C.S. tiro "to
rub," Lith. trinu "to rub," O.Ir. tarathar "borer," Welsh taraw "to
strike").
thread (n.)
O.E. þræd "fine cord, especially when twisted" (related to þrawan
"to twist"), from P.Gmc. *thrædus (cf. M.Du. draet, Du. draad, O.H.G.
drat, Ger. Draht, O.N. þraðr), from suffixed form of base *thræ- "twist"
(see throw). Meaning "spiral ridge of a screw" is from 1674. The verb
meaning "to put thread through a needle" is recorded from c.1366; in
ref. to film cameras from 1913. The dancing move called thread the
needle is attested from 1844. Threads, slang for "clothes" is 1926,
Amer.Eng. Threadbare is recorded from 1362, from the notion of "having
the nap worn off," leaving bare the threads.
throe (v.)
c.1200, throwe "pain, pang of childbirth, agony of death," possibly
from O.E. þrawan "twist, turn, writhe" (see throw), or altered from O.E.
þrea (gen. þrawe) "affliction, pang, evil, threat" (related to þrowian
"to suffer"), from P.Gmc. *thrawo (cf. M.H.G. dro "threat," Ger. drohen
"to threaten"). Modern spelling first recorded 1615.
Check this out! Amazing!
INDO-EUROPEAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY
http://www.indo-european.nl/%5Cindex2.html
Thanks for getting us going Rick!
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"Beware of people who speak with great authority, about what they know
nothing about."
-- Clay Mudman
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on sat 9 jul 05
This takes the talk in the realms of OT, but that is par for the course=
when Phil P and I get thinking!
I walk a little like a duck, thanks to ballet training When Very Young=
compounded by a broken and badly treated left leg aged 11. I apparently=
"throw" my feet out to the side when I walk, the weight bearing right leg=
being more prone than the shortened left. This is a prime example of the=
middle stage between the original meaning of "throw" (as meaning "turn=
with a twisting movement") and the modern "potters' definition".
As long as the context of the sentence makes it clear which "throw" or=
"turn" is meant, I do not have a problem. It does become difficult when=
regional differences are used and there is a presumption "everyone will=
understand/know" that is the expression "we use HERE" or by the individual=
talking. Now that "here" can mean anywhere in the whole wide world, that=
attitude is simply not too helpful.
There is a big difference between throwing/turning during primary forming=
of wet clay on a rotating wheel and the secondary or final cleaning-up or=
form correction of a leather hard pot, is there not? Whether you "throw,=
turn, fettle", "throw, coil, turn, fettle", "turn, turn, coil, fettle" or=
in the words of The Four Tops (?) "turn, turn, turn", it is hardly going=
to make much difference in the eye of the viewer/buyer/owner of the=
finished pot! They are not really going to chose a specific pot PRIMARILY=
because it was beautifully "thrown", "turned", "coiled", "fettled" or=
"slapped together", however controlled or loose the process was executed=
by the maker.
And Phil... You obviously are unaware of the Fine Art not to mention=
Exceptional Technique involved in "throwing" rocks or anything else=
accurately and well! Overhead throws are only possible with turning of the=
main joint responsible... The shoulder. Ask any Cricket player or even a=
baseball player what "turn" has in common with "throw" when they deliver a=
ball... Or even when skimming or skittering flat stones across water...=
Turning the stone when throwing, will make the difference between a good=
Niner, Tenner or more and a piddly Oner, Twoer or a completely duff throw!
Oh yes, Helen, you said; "Turning" pottery on a lathe is still done, I=
believe, in some British
factory potteries, where a slip-moulded piece is first turned on a lathe to=
finish the form, and then fettled as well (why this would be needed after=
the turning, I'm not sure)"
In fact, there are very few ceramic factories left in the UK, so it must be=
an "historic" reference you picked up on there. Jiggering, jollying,=
throwing and lathe turning were all different methods employed in the=
English China industry. I think it was more often product-specific which=
method was employed, rather than a Factory using one method alone. Lath=
turning was definitely practised, both in the forming of clay and in the=
finishing.
The additional fettling of mould-made work you question was done to remove=
the joint marks left on the clay from the moulds. That would be in places=
otherwise inaccessible by the foot or rim turner, like under the handle.=
The turning was done horizontally in most cases, as well as from above AND=
(believe it or not) from below! I believe horizontal work=
(throwing/turning, jigging, jollying and turning/fettling) was to reduce=
the space taken up by the turners and their equipment on the factory=
floor. There would have been a long row of men (yes, another=
gender-exclusive occupation) working in the workshop at any one time. I=
have never seen how they solved engineering aspects because most of the=
"this is how they worked" material and demonstrations, focuses on one man=
at a time.
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser -- who thinks the number of clay/pottery/ceramic books=
published in the English language has had a far great influence than=
anything else on the use of "English English" terminology on this subject=
and many practice-based traditions outside clay.
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>Yet the term 'throw', in use, also, was long applied to things or motions
>not 'turned' or 'twisted' at all
>
>When one throws something, a rock say, it is hard to find a turning or
>twisting motion to suppose is the salient part that the term
*** PREVIOUS MAIL ENDS HERE ***
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/42 - Release Date: 06/07/2005
| |
|
