thoughts ad coments about the change and purpose of cone 6 electric

[eleanor akowitz]

 

i am surprised to see that our group has expanded to raku, gas and even some ^10 firing.  i really liked when it specifically addressed the ^6 electric firing as a specific event rather than folding the subject ^6 in to a general all around discussion.  clayart is a very large group that works very well, and encompasses many clay topics and issues.  i  really liked the original idea of  cone 6 exclusivity.  In addition, many, many people are forgetting to add notes to their pictures giving ^ numbers, atmosphere and name of glazes. I thought that this group was created to focus on ^6 oxidation, but now I feel we that we are moving further and farther from our original concept. 

And again I must repeat and repeat again--- please label all the photos submitted so all of us can get a better understanding of what you are showing.  I know that I sound like a curmudgeon but I really have strong feeling regarding our start-up concept. Is there anyone else thinking this way. Let us open a discussion about this.

[George Lewter]

I disagree about clayart working very well.  It has horribly outdated technology. It has none of the capabilities we have for channeling our interests into groups, posting pictures, videos, live chat, discussion categories, blogspace, and it is frequently dominated by a few people conducting endless mind games. If it worked very well, I never would have started the cone6pots network. When I joined the clayart listserve, I knew almost immediately that there were better ways to use the Internet for a community built around a common interest. I started the network because the cone 6 electric community was underserved in the literature and online. I don't believe that is the case any longer with major clay artists moving to electric mid-fire techniques, much more coverage in the literature, and by ceramic suppliers paying much more attention to clays and glazes for mid-fire potters. We have had some pictures and mention of other techniques since the beginning of the network, and not sought to curtail them. We share virtually everything with other ceramists except the cone we fire to and the compositions of clay and glaze to make them mature in the desired range.  

I agree with your other comments, though, especially if we continue to encompass "Other Ways with Clay". Pictures, especially, need written documentation, or they are of little use to the community. The most frequent remark on this network is asking for the glazes or technique someone used on a picture posted with no information whatsoever except the filename automatically generated by the camera. We could try having new pictures pass documentation muster before allowing them online.  I would be willing to implement that on a majority vote, or we can remain laizzez faire, and not fret about picture captions.

[Jan Wallace]

I actually prefer this site now that it has expanded to other interests in pottery. I personally love to experiment with all types of techniques and firing methods and many potters that I have met are the same. There are so many wonderful things to explore when it comes to this craft and its great to be able to share all ideas not just the Cone 6 topics. I get a little peeved when photos are uploaded without descriptions and explanations as we are all here to share information, learn more and socialise with others who share a passion for clay. I agree that and that the is no point just uploading a photo without a description of the technique/glazes used. 

I have looked at clayart a couple of times and it is so backwards in terms of technology and very unappealing to visit.

[Craig Rhodes]

George, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of clayart. The software is buggy and out of date. I've never been able to get it to work for me.  Participation seems to be limited to a few insiders.  I'm seldom able to post a comment and on those rare occasions when my comment is posted it's full of code and thus unreadable.  Plus, more often than not I have to re-join the group because I'm mysteriously dropped from the rolls.  Moreover, you have to weed through a lot of irrelevant sometimes snarky comments to find anything of use. I'm sure given time and human nature there will be the occasional snark here but hope it will be minimal. 

The best thing about clayart is the fact that it is one of the oldest ceramics' forums and thus has a wealth of info in its archives that can be easily found. In that regard it has served its purpose.

I'm new to this forum and am still learning the rules.  I'm not aware of any rule here that requires one to list all the technical aspects of any given piece that has been uploaded.  I've just uploaded a lot of pics and when time permits from working in the studio/garden/life, I intend to list details with each pic.  Of course, if someone asks about a specific piece I will try to take the time to accommodate them.  However, it might be helpful if the person wanting the info asks politely (typing "please" helps) rather than demanding/insisting that you do what they want.  

BTW I fire with both electric and propane, porcelain/stoneware, at cone 6 therefore will be addressing all methods involved in any comments, descriptions or replies to others' questions.