[Lucille Oka]

Here is a very good image of 'decorative' crazing. I hope the link works. There is a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It is in "The New American Wing". Hopefully if you click on the image you will see a more detailed view. I was rather shocked when I saw it. I didn't expect it.

http://images.metmus...al/DP252081.jpg

Plaque made by Charles Volkmar (American, Baltimore, Maryland 1841–1914 Metuchen, New Jersey)

[Matt Oz]

That is very cool - thank you

[buckeye]

I lik it! thanks for posting the picture.

[Mariede]

Lucille Oka, on 06 January 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Here is a very good image of 'decorative' crazing. I hope the link works. There is a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It is in "The New American Wing". Hopefully if you click on the image you will see a more detailed view. I was rather shocked when I saw it. I didn't expect it.

http://images.metmus...al/DP252081.jpg

Plaque made by Charles Volkmar (American, Baltimore, Maryland 1841–1914 Metuchen, New Jersey)

[Mariede]

Hello Lucille
I am very interested, can you please tell me what your end sentence is? I tried to translate it from the Bablefish site but they dont translate what I think might be Latin to English. I'm so interested to find out what that end sentence means. Thanks! Best Regards, Marie

[Lucille Oka]

Mariede, on 06 January 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Hello Lucille
I am very interested, can you please tell me what your end sentence is? I tried to translate it from the Bablefish site but they dont translate what I think might be Latin to English. I'm so interested to find out what that end sentence means. Thanks! Best Regards, Marie

It is John 3:16 in Latin
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[Mariede]

Lucille, Thank you for your reply. I should have known it was something beautiful and inspirational. GB

[Frederik-W]

I asume this plate is in the museum because it is a piece of Americana.
The artistic merit is in the painting, and it could well be that the crackle was not intentional - as you say, it could be a flaw.
Nowadays we do it deliberately and rub ink into the cracks to make it more prominent because we think it is beautiful.
I'm not sure when in history cracks became intentional and viewed as art.

Does it matter when the cracks were not intentional?
Can we compliment an artist for something if he clearly did not intend it and if he himself would think of it as a flaw?
Does it matter what the artist actually tried to portray ?

Postmodern evaluation of a piece of art makes it acceptable to interpret the artwork any way we like,
whether it was the artist intention or not. It is a piece of "text" and we can read it any way.
There is no true "meaning", e.g. the intention of the artist, we can ascribe our own subjective meaning and it is just as valid.

But what will this artist say if we focus on his flaws in stead of his painting?

Very interesting of you to bring this up.

If you fire a piece today and it unintentionally cracks, but in a beautiful way - can you take credit for it?
In my humble opinion you can admire the beauty thereof, but when you get compliments you have to admit that it is not because of your skill
- if you are honest.
Any opinions?

[Matt Oz]

Slurrious, on 10 January 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

i know a 'studio' potter who was showcasing a 'singing glaze'. i never attended but i thought it was nonsense to display a batch of glaze with poor glaze fit as some artistic statement. but poor glaze fit creates crackle glazes so what do i know.

i have this idea that when art seems to create itself the artist exists hardly more than a tool. we inhibit art from forming by trying to express it. in this reagrd when something remarkable happens and we stand back and wonder where the time went how much credit can an artist really take? and iirc there is some theory in literature where the meaning of a work is assigned by the reader. so if we allow this idea the artist is a non-issue. i think this is J. Derrida(?) the death of the author - i googled it and it's a post structuralist idea in an essay by R. Barthes.

anyway - an interesting subject indeed

what i think is amazing is irrelevant. i can try to express how two glazes interact on the side of a bowl or how some experiment changed this or that but in the end i'm mostly talking too much. people will pick up the piece that 'speaks' to them regardless if i feel one is more 'art' than the other - even to the point of choosing a 'flaw' over 'perfection'.

just some rambling/disjointed thoughts

Depending on the results, sometimes, I don't mind being a tool.

[HBryson]

I have liked using the crazing as a decoration.

As up until recently I never knew it was bad :\

The only clear glaze in my school crazes like crazy (lame pun?)

Im not sure if its the way my teacher fires it (everything is low fired 05 i think) but Everything crazes

To the point: I've been able to use this as a decoration by boiling it in a thick black tea (going to try other natural dyes such as beets next)

Here is a picture of the first attempt (bear in mind that I am still in the learning phase and this was a test piece)

Clicky

[Lucille Oka]

Your vessel is beautiful. It looks like a very fine mosaic.

Yes crazing poses a health problem on 'surfaces that come in contact with food or drink'.
The vessel I shared is actually a plate but it is called a 'plaque'. It is purely decorative and rightly so.
I heard of a technique, let me preface by saying I have never tried it, but it relies on a deliberate crazing of the glaze, then rubbing underglaze or stain into the cracks, and refiring the crazed ware at a higher temperature to properly melt the glaze.
I have seen the ware made with the technique. It was interesting.