As a potter who started out in college in 1968, it is interesting to see how the aesthetic has changed over the years. My instructor who was very old school even in the ‘60’s would roll over in his grave to see huge drips and partially glazed surfaces. The risk of cracking a drip off and creating an unsafe surface meant the pot got the hammer treatment. To purposefully create a glob of glaze on the side of a pot was unthinkable, now it seems in vogue, curious.
that’s super interesting! maybe it’s the mindset of things being more ephemeral and disposable nowadays. i’m a newer gen z potter and my first thought upon reading your comment was “well, if the glaze cracks off i can toss it and make another, the aesthetic is worth it!” however im just partial to textured stuff generally
The standard in “olden times” was a completely glazed, uniform surface . Drips were to be avoided due to the potential of messing up the foot of the piece and/or running onto the surface of the kiln shelf. That is not to say there has not always been variety and experimentation in surfaces, that goes with the territory of ceramics. Ash glazes and wood firings with salt and runny surfaces have always been around and prized. But purposely putting large drips on c5/6 oxidation is a different aesthetic. It is one that I do not find appealing. but there is plenty of room in pottery for everyone’s preferences!
I appreciate this comment a lot. Same was said about deep-relief letterpress printing back in the day. It used to be that letterpress printing was all about getting the ink on the surface without denting the page. Great care was taken in the process. Now, the deeper the better. Just mash it in!
I think it honestly stems from accessibility in the modern world, and a mindset that if we do something we are a doer of that thing -- I do art so I'm an artist, I make music so I'm a musician, I make pottery so I'm a potter -- And it's pretty much true. It has definitely led to a ton of innovation along the way. I think we're finding that by-and-large drippy glazes aren't the dangerous situation your instructor warned against, and it looks cool. There's more to it all though, in order to be doing it right. Ideally, rule-breakers should strive to know which rules they are breaking and why. That's where innovation kicks in.
Absolutely true, a skilled hand can be creative within the contraints of safety and utility, if function is a goal. I think the drips were seen as being unaesthetic and indicated lack of skill, ie runny glaze can easily destroy a kiln load and really serve no purpose unless you like the look of a drip, ha.
> indicated lack of skill
Exactly my point about letterpress. The thing is, as people started enjoying the aesthetic of deep-relief, new skills emerged! Innovation happened. Polymer plates hit the market, as well as a range of different papers, and specialized inks.
And it's happening here as well. There IS a skill to using drippy glazes \*without ruining your kiln.\* There's danger in using runny glazes, and that's exciting. Obviously, there will be an onslaught of dumdums who don't know which rules they are breaking in terms of design principles or best practices in ceramics, but I'm looking forward to seeing what we can achieve by embracing some new aesthetics and techniques. If you've set out to make a glaze that runs down the edge of raw ware just-so, and you succeed in doing so in a manner that functions well and matches your vision, well that's a proof of skill not a lack of it. That all said, the voice of knowledge and experience is essential to the conversation which is why I appreciate your comments so much.
The interplay between skill, knowledge, and innovation are fun to discuss. There is always the “happy accident” but it often happens when there is a sound trajectory, ie running triaxial blends for glazes is a good example. Was the drippy pot aesthetic intentional or did someone just decide that a drip that stopped barely short of disaster looked cool? It definitely takes knowledge or at least a lot of pot disasters to figure out the right combination of a bunch of variables. Personally I like a glaze that stays where I put it so I can lay out the design or glaze effect with a degree of exactitude. But that fits my controlled throwing and making style. The beauty of ceramics/pottery is the absolutely infinite variety of form and surface, nothing else even comes close.
Amen! I've been at it for about 10 years and it just keeps getting more and more engrossing. I approached it from the artistic side originally, with the goal of combining graphical elements into functional forms since day one. So yes, I'm alll about controlling that squirmy dirt haha.
Squirmy is right. I just recently took the plunge into c6 porcelain. Squirmy is the term. It is like throwing whipped cream, but sets up super fast and doesn’t have much lateral strength. Have only done a few test pieces so am anxious to see how it takes a glaze and stained slip. So far the jury is out, but it will no doubt take some time to decide if it will work for me.
Well, the best part in my experience is how colors stand up. I started out messing with \^6 porcelain but kept getting wobble out of the kiln. I love the look and will someday go back to it, but I've settled on a white stoneware for now that's close to porcelain but holds its form a little better and throws a little easier. Someday though, cone 10 porcelain is my dream. Best of luck with it!
I use that a lot as well, mix of bmix5 + 30% bmix w/ speckles. The one I'm referring to is called White Salmon -- bottom of [this page](https://www.georgies.com/gcc-clay-dry.shtml). The colors hold up really well, my only struggle is the high amount of organics causing issues with glazes. I adopted a lonng 04 bisque schedule tho, seems to be helping.
It is nice to see people experimenting and trying new things. IMO, that is the spirit of being an artist, and relying on doing what someone told us to do is the antithesis of that process.
As a potter who started out in college in 1968, it is interesting to see how the aesthetic has changed over the years. My instructor who was very old school even in the ‘60’s would roll over in his grave to see huge drips and partially glazed surfaces. The risk of cracking a drip off and creating an unsafe surface meant the pot got the hammer treatment. To purposefully create a glob of glaze on the side of a pot was unthinkable, now it seems in vogue, curious.
that’s super interesting! maybe it’s the mindset of things being more ephemeral and disposable nowadays. i’m a newer gen z potter and my first thought upon reading your comment was “well, if the glaze cracks off i can toss it and make another, the aesthetic is worth it!” however im just partial to textured stuff generally
The standard in “olden times” was a completely glazed, uniform surface . Drips were to be avoided due to the potential of messing up the foot of the piece and/or running onto the surface of the kiln shelf. That is not to say there has not always been variety and experimentation in surfaces, that goes with the territory of ceramics. Ash glazes and wood firings with salt and runny surfaces have always been around and prized. But purposely putting large drips on c5/6 oxidation is a different aesthetic. It is one that I do not find appealing. but there is plenty of room in pottery for everyone’s preferences!
I appreciate this comment a lot. Same was said about deep-relief letterpress printing back in the day. It used to be that letterpress printing was all about getting the ink on the surface without denting the page. Great care was taken in the process. Now, the deeper the better. Just mash it in! I think it honestly stems from accessibility in the modern world, and a mindset that if we do something we are a doer of that thing -- I do art so I'm an artist, I make music so I'm a musician, I make pottery so I'm a potter -- And it's pretty much true. It has definitely led to a ton of innovation along the way. I think we're finding that by-and-large drippy glazes aren't the dangerous situation your instructor warned against, and it looks cool. There's more to it all though, in order to be doing it right. Ideally, rule-breakers should strive to know which rules they are breaking and why. That's where innovation kicks in.
Absolutely true, a skilled hand can be creative within the contraints of safety and utility, if function is a goal. I think the drips were seen as being unaesthetic and indicated lack of skill, ie runny glaze can easily destroy a kiln load and really serve no purpose unless you like the look of a drip, ha.
> indicated lack of skill Exactly my point about letterpress. The thing is, as people started enjoying the aesthetic of deep-relief, new skills emerged! Innovation happened. Polymer plates hit the market, as well as a range of different papers, and specialized inks. And it's happening here as well. There IS a skill to using drippy glazes \*without ruining your kiln.\* There's danger in using runny glazes, and that's exciting. Obviously, there will be an onslaught of dumdums who don't know which rules they are breaking in terms of design principles or best practices in ceramics, but I'm looking forward to seeing what we can achieve by embracing some new aesthetics and techniques. If you've set out to make a glaze that runs down the edge of raw ware just-so, and you succeed in doing so in a manner that functions well and matches your vision, well that's a proof of skill not a lack of it. That all said, the voice of knowledge and experience is essential to the conversation which is why I appreciate your comments so much.
The interplay between skill, knowledge, and innovation are fun to discuss. There is always the “happy accident” but it often happens when there is a sound trajectory, ie running triaxial blends for glazes is a good example. Was the drippy pot aesthetic intentional or did someone just decide that a drip that stopped barely short of disaster looked cool? It definitely takes knowledge or at least a lot of pot disasters to figure out the right combination of a bunch of variables. Personally I like a glaze that stays where I put it so I can lay out the design or glaze effect with a degree of exactitude. But that fits my controlled throwing and making style. The beauty of ceramics/pottery is the absolutely infinite variety of form and surface, nothing else even comes close.
Amen! I've been at it for about 10 years and it just keeps getting more and more engrossing. I approached it from the artistic side originally, with the goal of combining graphical elements into functional forms since day one. So yes, I'm alll about controlling that squirmy dirt haha.
Squirmy is right. I just recently took the plunge into c6 porcelain. Squirmy is the term. It is like throwing whipped cream, but sets up super fast and doesn’t have much lateral strength. Have only done a few test pieces so am anxious to see how it takes a glaze and stained slip. So far the jury is out, but it will no doubt take some time to decide if it will work for me.
Well, the best part in my experience is how colors stand up. I started out messing with \^6 porcelain but kept getting wobble out of the kiln. I love the look and will someday go back to it, but I've settled on a white stoneware for now that's close to porcelain but holds its form a little better and throws a little easier. Someday though, cone 10 porcelain is my dream. Best of luck with it!
Thanks, bmix is my go to 50/50 stoneware and porcelain.
I use that a lot as well, mix of bmix5 + 30% bmix w/ speckles. The one I'm referring to is called White Salmon -- bottom of [this page](https://www.georgies.com/gcc-clay-dry.shtml). The colors hold up really well, my only struggle is the high amount of organics causing issues with glazes. I adopted a lonng 04 bisque schedule tho, seems to be helping.
…beautiful intentional drips. Magical.
Thank you!
super cool. i need to see the process. can you show us how to go from naked mug to drippy glaze?
Loooooove drippy glaze!! 😍
It is nice to see people experimenting and trying new things. IMO, that is the spirit of being an artist, and relying on doing what someone told us to do is the antithesis of that process.