Talk:Korean pottery and porcelain/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 → |
Contents |
Korean ceramics
This entry is mistakenly redirected from KOREAN CERAMICS which includes a general history of ceramics, within which later on the subject of pottery or materials turned on a potter's wheel is introduced. Please do not hack this article before you have read the divisions introduced. It is being written by someone who knows a good deal about the subject. And once the framework is laid out, will be edited by Seoul University professors.
:Ceramics includes pottery, but pottery does not include ceramics. POofYS Dated 06:35, 20 March 2005.
- It's a good idea to start an article with a reasonable amount of detail, rather than with one (plain text)sentence — especially as you don't have a user name. Editors on the look out for the many spoof, vandal, or substub articles added by anon users to Wikipedia every day are likely to assume that yours is one of them, as I did.
- Ah, I see that you have — except that you're not logged in. I'm not sure what's going on. Is more than one person using this account?
- If you open a Wikipedia user account (free, easy, and very useful), you can develop an article in your own User-space, adding it to the encyclopædia when it's ready.
- Please look at other Wikipedia articles, and see how they're presented (the names given to standard sections, such as 'External links' rather than 'Webography', for example), and try to present your article in the same way.
- Aleways sign your comments on pages like this one with four tildes (~~~~), even if you don't have an account; it makes it possible for others to contact you, as well as to find out something of your editing history. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't Panic over Semantics!
Moved the following sentence from article for discussion - and hopefully, eventual concensus.
Specific references to pottery which falls within the purvey of the larger genre ceramics will be attended later in this article.
-
- Before we go further in restructuring the clay world in Wiki -- please read my lengthy response to the original author, ( 65.94.158.92) who left a message on Pottery's talk page. We are seemingly dealing with semantics which vary from his clay culture -Korean, apparently- and the English/American clay culture. For in America, our point of view is very different -- Pottery includes ceramics, but ceramics does not necessarily include pottery or art. About the only time American clay people use ceramics is in course titles at university or when discussing technical processes. To many clay people, ceramics is becoming an American "dirty" word. So -- in a Korean Wiki (does one exist?) his clay article structure might be best, but such an organization would be very confusing and perhaps annoying in the English Wiki.
And, please - 65.94.158.92-, don't try and pull rank, I too know what I'm talking about - for the last 25 years. WBardwin 13:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A question of accuracy, ceramics ... not semantics
Once again, the articles are redirected mistakenly.
With hope this shall be corrected.
The point is simple.
In the USA, ceramic roof tiles, ceramic architectural elements, ceramic walls, ceramic friezes, votive items, ceramic stoves, etc. ARE NOT the majority part of the culture, in Korea they are, and always have been. Pottery is a late invention, unlike within the Americas were it was the central invention.
A similar history occurs for example in Germany and Sweden and Spain, where ceramic architectural and domestic elements, especially tiling, and huge ceramic stoves, represent the significant historical and aesthetic items of the culture. One cannot talk about Spanish tiles under the genre of "pottery" - and where does one put Gaudi and his studios ... as potters?
That would lead to utter nonsense and inaccuracy.
In terms of the Wikipedia, I assume the wikipedia is global and not forced into American categorical thinking. Is that a fair question? In terms of demanding that all foreign countries and their culture fit into American models, the danger is that the wikipedia will lose both accuracy, and readership, and collapse into mirroring American society and thinking. And form a kind of censorship that eliminates other countries by fiat. This would be of use in American subjects, but not, for example, in dealing with the wide variety of contributors outside the USA who equally have a great deal of material to contribute that has an accuracy that comes from regional expertise and know the local terrain. With a template of only American models, ultimately the wikipedia would only become an American encylopaedia - kind of defeats the open model doesn't it?
In terms of ghettoizing Korean articles outside of the English wikipedia, which the reader above suggests, denying world readers the ability to read about Korean cultural history in English, I should think that such a thing suggests an attempt at censorship; and wikipedia only reflecting individual rather than global kinds of experiences. Restricting than expanding global knowledge.
Comments?
POofYS Dated 06:35, 20 March 2005.
- Wiki articles are not produced for authors or experts but for our English speaking audience. The headlines/titles of the articles are the only way they can find the information. I'm not suggesting we not use your information -- only that we find a tree - a structure - that will direct the audience to the right information. While you are writing the articles, they will probably be redirected into the current structure (I did not write that structure and I am not moving articles. But system administrators will probably stick to the current system until we offer a better one.)
- Once the articles are written, however, we can together come up with a tree under "Clay" or "Clay Products" or even "Ceramics," if you want to use a word of Greek/Latin origin, which can redirect and educate our reader. Please read the current Ceramics article to note how science/tech oriented the word is generally used here. Also read my previous note on the POofYS talk page. Please, don't let your authors become upset at the redirects -- but get things completed. As far as I know, I am one of the few active clay people on the Wiki at the moment. I will consult with clay people not on Wiki, get their ideas, and your people and I can work out a better structure - perhaps on a special user sandbox page. I and the system admin have been writing each other, trying to understand your purpose here, the points you are making, and the best way we can help you. Please read these scattered notes (on several related pages) in date order. I will monitor your articles and try to learn from them. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I just want to address what maybe construed by some as a minor point,that is, many who look for Korean Pottery, or Korean Ceramics, or Korean Porcelain for that matter, are most likely looking for information or images of such art pieces Korean culture has produced over their history. Wiki already has article on Korean Porcelain as with Chinese Ceramics. What appears to be a problem is the wiki itself or those who are redirecting the pages haven't decided on the word. While "pottery" refers to generally a category of a method or a way to use clay and form it in certain fashion to produce usable items, "ceramics and porcelain" refer to more stylized pieces that are produced from highly disciplined artisans.
-
-
-
- One way to think about is that just about anyone can produce a pottery. Not many can produce a celadon.
-
-
-
- To insists that all Asian art pieces made of clay be refer to as a pottery because of our fairly limited usage of the word ceramics in material science, is, for me at least, to be ill informed and even offensive to those people whose long cultural history have produced perhaps one of the most beautiful art works the world has ever seen.
-
-
-
- This discussion actually reminds me the words drawings and paintings. No one will call Rambrandt's painting a drawing.
-
-
-
- In English, when we refer to Korean Porcelain or Korean Ceramics, we mean the art pieces, and not the earthenware(Hang-Ah-Ri) the korean people have also produced AND used. Koreans used pottery to make those earthenwares as well as Art pieces. But the artform used to produce a Celdon is hardly the similar or even at the similar level in terms of skills required.
-
-
-
- Also it will be hard pressed to look for people who are interested in Korean materials science, in particular, Ceramics AND use the term "Korean Ceramics" to search for the info. Having said that, the phrase "Korean pottery" does seem very crude. Just as saying "Western Eurpoean drawings" to mean the western tradition of visual art sounds crude. Hope that helps. 24.41.47.229 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)sean
-
- Thanks for your opinion. But........... despite how easy it may look, not just anyone can make pottery! And, today, there are thousands of celadon recipes (some good some bad)! This article is particularly difficult, it appears, because the Korean/Asian use of terms is very, very different from how English terms are used, both in clay production, sales, and art history. So, concepts between the two cultures do not translate well. For example, Asian terms have a strong distinction on the temperature of firing, with "pottery" being very low fired (English:earthenware) and "porcelain" being very high fired (English: stoneware and porcelain). However, modern ceramic chemistry allows (again in English usage) earthenware, stoneware, and procelain clay to be formulated to mature at very low temperatures indeed. So the term aren't truly comparable, if you will
- It appears from your post that your distinction between pottery, ceramics, and porcelain is based on perceived beauty and class usage, both subjective criteria, rather than any objective criteria. What is beautiful to one person, etc....... Please read the discussion topics on this page and the Pottery] page. From my perspective, our issues/concern are: 1) to be consistant in definitions in all clay related articles and in all clay art related articles, 2) to provide definitions, redirects, and alternatives to all readers of the encyclopedia, whatever their culture, and 3) to address the history of both the art and craft of clay ware, in all cultures. I have my own opinions on what terms would be best, but am actively working on establishing some kind of consensus on terms and usage. Please see the current discussion on my talk page and on the talk page of User:Iwanafish. Your additional comments welcome. WBardwin 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
New Material!
Author(s): Thank you for the new information on this article and others. "Mel Etitis" is doing a little copy editing on your material to make it less formal for English readers. I'm looking over the pottery information, and learning what I can. This should turn into a great article. Looking forward to more. WBardwin 10:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Problem
I don't want to stir up the ceramics/pottery/clay waters, but asthe article currently stands it is called "KP" and has a Wik link to KC. But this link simply circles back to KP under a re-direct. Would some-one please change this with-out destroying any appropriate re-directs?Kdammers 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
giving wrong impression?
sorry to intrude, but I think the first couple of sentences in this article are alarmingly misleading. The oldest pottery in the Korean Peninsula is among the oldest in Northeast Asia (or the WORLD for that matter) and dates to the Incipient Jeulmun pottery period (c. 9000-8000 B.C.). In the 1990s the Jeju University Museum and the National Institute for Cultural Heritage Research excavated a site in Jeju-do called Gosan-ni in wich they found the earliest example of Yunggimun (융기문토기) pottery. The article on Korean pottery gives the impression that the earliest pottery dates to the historic period!! I advise you to correct this.Cheers,Mumun 23:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
White Porcelain
Because of the creation of a new article, Joseon White Porcelain, the link "white porcelain" may need to be renamed so that the reader of this article knows that the link does not go to a "general white porcelain" article but a "Joseon white porcelain" article. Just a thought.
Maksabal막사발
I think Maksabal, which is transferred to Japan, should be added to the article.
Korean Pottery?????
Any attempt to redefine an East Asian ceramic history back to "pottery" is an example of linguistic and intellectual absurdity. East Asian languages alone will not permit this. The character for "pottery" is combined with the character for "porcelain" to produce the new and inclusive term "ceramics." We should at least have minimum respect for the cultures we study and restrain any personal fondness we have for folkways real or imagined. It was East Asian innovation that invented "porcelain" to begin with, and necessitated the new term "ceramics." Go with the flow? Iwanafish 5/30/07
-
- I have moved the page back to Korean Pottery. This is an English Wikipedia, and English usage rather than Asian usage predominates. This topic has been debated here for several years. Such a change should only be made after consensus is reached, and so far, that has not occurred. IMO, usage should be consistant in all clay related articles in the English Wiki. Please read the previous debates and opinions on this and related talk pages. Best............WBardwin 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I understand your point. I looked in the Britannica and saw that what we think of as "ceramics" is discussed under "pottery". Perhaps a joint name for the article such as "Korean pottery and porcelain" would be better. "Pottery" alone still gives one the wrong impression of low fired Silla ware. Again, as I look at the various dictionary items here at my home I see that the matter is basically an American English vs. British English problem. WBardwin is basically a Brit who wants his of her usuage. My Britannica thinking led me astray. Again a longer title as I have suggested above solves the problem. I do not see why the Brits should have the language on their terms. --Iwanafish 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Brit?? That's a laugh, although most of my great, great, great (etc....) grandparents came from Britain. No, I'm an American. I'm almost a Mayflower descendant - one of my ancestors was on the third expedition to New England. I live in the American West and spend a great deal of my time working with clay -- both as a teacher and as a producer of functional clay works. Yes -- I'm a potter and an archaeologist too! I've always got my hands in some kind of mud. The differences we've long been discussing on this page are, from my perspective, based on a language preference in Asian cultures for "ceramics" and the western clay communities preference for "pottery." Both communities appear to define the two words differently. When people from art galleries and art academia show up, we often get a third perception. And historians and archaeologists may have a fourth viewpoint. Korean contributors (see top of page) seemed to believe that "pottery" was a low-class term and denigrated the "art"/ceramics of their country. Some contributors to other clay related articles in Wikipedia insist that vessels -- of whatever sort, from whatever culture -- are pottery, and non-vessels are ceramic items (see the talk page on Pottery). If you look around, you can see that the debate is broader than just this article, and that Wikipedia titles in this area are very inconsistent (see Chinese ceramics). I have a strong personal preference for pottery as the generic term, and use it that way in my writing. But I have an even stronger wish to come to some kind of consensus, some standards for clay related articles. You may be coming at this article from a different perspective, perhaps dealing with the history or art culture of Asia. But I suspect you can see the value to the Wikipedia reader of consistent terms for related topics. Would you be interested in working at common definitions of these terms? For many articles? Best wishes....WBardwin 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- And......all the changes from "pottery" to either ceramics or porcelain????? In English usage (American too), pottery is not defined by composition of clay or by firing temperature. Korean ware (as most clayware around the world) began as earthenware, then some gray/red stonewares were produced. In Korea, porcelainous stonewares were developed (with true porcelain slip decoration), and finally porcelain itself. You can't use porcelain as a generic term in English. It means a specific material with a specific outcome. Let's negotiate on these changes in terms. WBardwin 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods discussion.
Since the page in question is a collection of ceramics of poor quality and the photos are even worse, let us end this discussion. The creaters of the above page should have the grace and GOOD TASTE to get rid of it.--60.239.194.26 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
