Talk:Pit fired pottery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Started this page 1-27-05. Will work on it. Advice welcome. -W

Please be patient. Still learning the ropes. 1-27-05 -W

No worries; looks like you're learning them pretty fast. If you want to get a login, go to Special:Userlogin. If you do that, it makes things a bit easier: for example, you can sign your name and the data by typing in four ~'s: ~~~~, and you can get messages on your user page. Great to see you here! DanKeshet 01:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saggar

Hi everyone. I have some doubts abot this "Other traditional pottery processes which have been revived or modified by modern potters include the Asian technique of raku, the use of containers known as saggars in gas and wood fired kilns, and the use of salt as a glaze raw material." The reaons:

• Why include it as the article is not about saggar firing, raku or salt firing.
• It suggests that saggar firing had stopped, and has been reinstated.

ThanxTheriac 08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it puts this firing method in a family of pottery techniques that have been revived or modified as visual art techniques during the late 20th century. Please note the or. Saggars have continued in their traditional use, but have recently been modified or adapted for use in the visual arts. But...... we could simply put links in "See also" if you think that would be better. WBardwin 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello WBardwin. As the last sentence neither contains a reference to pit firing nor adds any information about it I can see no reason for its inclusion. A "See also" link would be useful, and other articles could also be included there. + I've added a comment over at Saggar fired pottery. ThanxTheriac 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse hair technique

I have again restored the material on horsehair firing which an IP user(s) repeatedly deleted. I asked the current IP to com to the talk page, as discussion should be the first step toward removing material. In general, I don't delete material nor am I patient when others decide to do so on their own. Instead, I research, verify and rewrite. From what I personally know and what I read and hear from others, this technique is an emerging trend in Western American pottery. The potter in the article is generally given credit for the innovation by other practitioners, but is not well known. Even if this style turns to be a fad, the technique should have some mention here for now. Opinions? WBardwin (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.I wholly disagree with its inclusion. It is a small-scale technique, hardly original, and only distantly connected to the article's subject. Plus the only supporting citation is a commercial site. I say get rid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.29.36 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my area of the world, the US Rocky Mountains and Southwest, the use of this technique is growing among students and gallery artists. It is now briefly included in the arts curriculum in two universities in my state. However, Raku craftsmen/artists say it is not raku, and pit firing people say it is not pit fired?? It is, of course, a little of both. It may be just a fad, however time will tell. As for original -- I don't think anything in the clay world is truly original. People have been playing with clay for about 25,000 years at last count! I've removed the section from the Raku article, but I would say, keep the paragraph here for now. Best.......WBardwin (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)