Pres

I will condider shorting the 1000 foot pier I was dreaming of to say 500 feet
As to the  ceramic tec i'll give up the kiln controlers on an electric (I do not have one) But am willing to finish without one

I'm in the "no" camp as well, except to give up an electric kiln for a woodfired one, if it came with people to help chop wood and fire it.

Harvesting and processing wild clay is an emerging trend; more popular than most realize. Many are processing their own silica, fluxes, etc from wild sources. Natural basalt is gaining popularity for some amazing reds. The best looking celadon I have seen is processed from natural materials. Certainly not profitable or suitable for production: although some are heading that direction. Hunting wild clay is somewhere in the panning for gold category: hoping to find the perfect pit. Firing crystalline; absolute No for me- cannot give up modern kiln controllers.
Tom

Can't really get a hook into anything in my clay-world to serve as a response, other than "no" .

NO!

@liambesawIt would cut my current production down so far it would not be nearly as enjoyable. However, the time on the wheel would become extremely precious!
 
best,
Pres

@Presunderstandable. There's no doubt I'd slow down if I had to dig clay, and I'd respect it and cherish it a whole hell of a lot more.  Might not be a bad thing.

Needed a change of pace and had lots of pieces ready for my wife to paint so I made this, to bad the board cracked but it adds character.

I think the other thing that has made a significant change to how electric kiln fired glazes turn out is the practice of slow cooling. I think that has been a game changer; being able to get the micro crystallization of dolomite mattes etc. that are possible with a high mass hard brick kiln that cools so much slower than the typical electric kiln. I was looking through an online CM magazine from the fifties, an article spoke of using the kiln sitter and propping it back up and turning the dial(s) back on to medium for a few hours. I didn't know it was a thing back then to slow cool (I wasn't around then), it's my understanding that the practice of slow cooling electric kilns really took off when it was written about in the Mastering Cone 6 Glazes book from Hesselberth and Roy. I know that when I went to school in the 90's the electric kilns were mostly used for bisque or earthenware firing. Can't remember anyone slow cooling the electrics.

OK, @LeeU, I'll bite on that, anyone else have something to add or change?
 
best.
Pres

As I remember much of the discussion on other sites, years ago, cone 4 was just above Earthenware range and into stoneware. Others believed that to be a little low, and went to cone 5. Then there were a series of clays and commercial glazes that were designed for cone 4-6.  It became apparent to many that the better surfaces for the glazes often occurred at cone 6. Over the years, I have often wondered what would have happened if we had not had the energy cost rise that precipitated the move toward mid range stoneware. The move towards Cone 4-6 has certainly done well for Ceramics in general as many schools in cities without the resources for gas fired kilns with teachers trained in gas reduction have benefited from the use of electric mid-range Oxidation. 
Aesthetically there is was also another shift as those advocates of reduction moving to mid range carried their likes/dislikes with them and early glazes for mid-range tried to emulate reduction glazes. However over the years the mid range glaze repertoire has become quite broad with many craters and artists ranging far from the olde aesthetic. The richness of surface seen in reduction, can be emulated in mid range with layering of glazes, often by spraying and underglaze/overglaze color and other strategies. Colors achievable at high fire may be synthetically developed as in Copper reds with local reduction.  However much of these are not as pleasing as the colors achieved in High fire reduction. At the same time, now we see more low fire type decoration and glaze done at mid range due to the durability of the mid range vs. the earthenware.  All in all, the last 50 years has done wonders for the science and art of ceramics.
 
best,
Pres

As I remember much of the discussion on other sites, years ago, cone 4 was just above Earthenware range and into stoneware. Others believed that to be a little low, and went to cone 5. Then there were a series of clays and commercial glazes that were designed for cone 4-6.  It became apparent to many that the better surfaces for the glazes often occurred at cone 6. Over the years, I have often wondered what would have happened if we had not had the energy cost rise that precipitated the move toward mid range stoneware. The move towards Cone 4-6 has certainly done well for Ceramics in general as many schools in cities without the resources for gas fired kilns with teachers trained in gas reduction have benefited from the use of electric mid-range Oxidation. 
Aesthetically there is was also another shift as those advocates of reduction moving to mid range carried their likes/dislikes with them and early glazes for mid-range tried to emulate reduction glazes. However over the years the mid range glaze repertoire has become quite broad with many craters and artists ranging far from the olde aesthetic. The richness of surface seen in reduction, can be emulated in mid range with layering of glazes, often by spraying and underglaze/overglaze color and other strategies. Colors achievable at high fire may be synthetically developed as in Copper reds with local reduction.  However much of these are not as pleasing as the colors achieved in High fire reduction. At the same time, now we see more low fire type decoration and glaze done at mid range due to the durability of the mid range vs. the earthenware.  All in all, the last 50 years has done wonders for the science and art of ceramics.
 
best,
Pres

As I remember much of the discussion on other sites, years ago, cone 4 was just above Earthenware range and into stoneware. Others believed that to be a little low, and went to cone 5. Then there were a series of clays and commercial glazes that were designed for cone 4-6.  It became apparent to many that the better surfaces for the glazes often occurred at cone 6. Over the years, I have often wondered what would have happened if we had not had the energy cost rise that precipitated the move toward mid range stoneware. The move towards Cone 4-6 has certainly done well for Ceramics in general as many schools in cities without the resources for gas fired kilns with teachers trained in gas reduction have benefited from the use of electric mid-range Oxidation. 
Aesthetically there is was also another shift as those advocates of reduction moving to mid range carried their likes/dislikes with them and early glazes for mid-range tried to emulate reduction glazes. However over the years the mid range glaze repertoire has become quite broad with many craters and artists ranging far from the olde aesthetic. The richness of surface seen in reduction, can be emulated in mid range with layering of glazes, often by spraying and underglaze/overglaze color and other strategies. Colors achievable at high fire may be synthetically developed as in Copper reds with local reduction.  However much of these are not as pleasing as the colors achieved in High fire reduction. At the same time, now we see more low fire type decoration and glaze done at mid range due to the durability of the mid range vs. the earthenware.  All in all, the last 50 years has done wonders for the science and art of ceramics.
 
best,
Pres

Hi folks, another revision as suggested @Bill Kielb:
Technology for art and craft Ceramics may be defined as any practical evolutionary or revolutionary advancement of knowledge contributing to a ceramic process that allows a more efficient method for enhancing traditional practices with the aid of a system, technique, tool or piece of equipment.
 
best,
Pres
 

Looks fine, maybe “ within” is a bit narrow and  “contributing to” or something to that effect is broader and includes processes and innovation outside art and crafts  ceramics that end up being of significance. Don’t know if “traditional” is helpful in this context maybe enhancing traditional ...... something to that effect.

Technology for art and craft Ceramics may be defined as any practical evolutionary or revolutionary advancement of knowledge within a ceramic process that allows a more efficient method for traditional practices with the aid of a system, technique, tool or piece of equipment.
I would not want to leave out the artists, that do decorative work or the sculptors etc. thus putting in the art and craft. I bow to your editing skills, as you have taken a longer statement and boiled it down to a much more precise statement. . . . thank you.  
How do those of you in the community feel about the statement above.
best,
Pres

Technology for craft Ceramics may be defined as any practical evolutionary or revolutionary advancement of knowledge within a ceramic process that allows a more efficient method for traditional practices with the aid of a system, technique, tool or piece of equipment.
 
I just thought it read a little more concise without changing the definition much.  

I think that distinction is often blurry. For instance, say someone uses the latest computer technology and high-tech NASA materials to create a hammer that drives nails with 50% less effort. Is that hammer low tech because it's still a hammer that doesn't have any electronics, or is it high tech because of how it was designed and manufactured? I think materials alone can make something high tech even if it doesn't have electronics.
I think technology has a lot of smaller categories- new tech, old tech, low tech, high tech, etc. I suppose something is old tech as soon as  something newer comes along. Digital kiln controllers were the latest tech for 25-30 years until the touch screen controllers came out. Now they're the old tech, but they're still high-tech compared to Kiln Sitters. It's all relative. And high tech isn't automatically better than low tech. Digital kiln controllers are the easiest way to fire, but witness cones are still the most accurate. Some people prefer high tech, some prefer low tech. There's room for a lot of personal choice. Low tech solutions are beautiful in their simplicity. High tech solutions can blow your mind. It's all good. I think of technology as 'any object, tool, or system that simplifies, expedites, or automates a process'.

With all due respect @liambesaw I do think it's a useful dialogue to be having. From last weeks QoTW and the topic "Do you draw a line in the sand about technology when it comes to your studio or anything Ceramic?" it was your reply "I think 3D printers are the only real new technology to hit pottery since I was born, so maybe this is more a question for the older people here then?" that brought to my mind the possibility that we have different definitions of technology as it relates to ceramics. To me wifi enabled controllers that have only been available for a few years now would fit Pres's definition and yet it doesn't apparently fit yours. (or was an oversight)
I believe Pres is very open to suggestions for a QoTW, yours sounds like an interesting one.

Technology for Ceramics may be defined as any practical advancement of knowledge within a  ceramic process that will allow a cost effective, easier or quicker, way of doing traditional practices with the aid of a new system, tool or piece of equipment. This could be some form of evolutionary technology building on traditional methods and equipment or completely new technology.
@Min I tried to include wifi under new system. . . understanding that there are a lot of different definitions out there as to old and new and types of tools.
@HulkGood thoughts, I understand that potters are interested in pots, sculpture sculp, hand builders don't throw, designers look for form. However, I believe it best to come to a broad definition that allows us to cover all. I did not catch the double word use of process and processes, so I changed it to "practices" in second usage. Seems to fit better also.
 
best,
Pres

I think it would be a good idea to come to some consensus on the meaning of "technology" I would propose that we collaboratively write a statement of what "technology" means to us in the Ceramic community, or at least in the ICAN Community Forum. As a starter I will present what it means to me.
Technology for me as involved in ceramics is basically anything that makes my life easier when working with clay. This could include anything that makes my life easier, that I may have had another way of doing, but something technologically innovative would be helpful. 
for Example:
when cutting stencil to spray glazes through I started with commercial stencil, went to hand cutting my own, then to using a cricut type cutter controlled by my computer to cut them. You all know about the handle pulling problem I have with my rt thumb, and not being ambidextrous to use my lt hand, I tried using a hand held putty gun type extruder. That was too much for my hands, even though it worked, but cranking out 100 handles in one day was tough. I switched to a modified battery powered putty gun modified to extrude my handles and other small sections for pottery. At school, I used a setter to fire the kiln, took a step backwards to not have a setter on my own kiln because I wanted to fire up and down. Now days a kiln controller will fire pots up and down and do so much more. I use a scroll saw to cut the dies for my hand extruder, used to use a coping saw. Two years ago while teaching the adult class at the high school someone needed a die for the handheld extruder at the school. Another teacher taking the class took a drawing of what  she wanted down to his "shop" scanned the drawing into the computer, took it into a cad program and cleaned up the scan scaled it and then hit print. A laser die cutter had the die outside cut and the inside extrusion area cut in about 3 minutes! Whole process took maybe 10 minutes. I use a Griffin Grip, today that is old tech, but when it came out in the 80's I think it was like WOW to me. In a little bit of no time I realized how much faster I could trim pots. Even though I knew all of the tap centering tricks and was quick, this thing was quicker, and it would handle odd shapes with a little creative help. Now days with pieces of plumbing parts I can trim stems and chalice bowls and assemble in short time. Also use outer edges of some parts to trim to exacting diameters. Easy and Quick. So to me, unless I can afford or justify the tech, it is not any good to me. Surprisingly enough, the laser cutter, are dropping in price to where cutting the dies will be cost effective. The teachers cutter was about a 24 X 36 table. Pretty big for home use.
I will pose a starting point for a definition:
Technology for Ceramics may be defined as any advancement in a process that will allow a cost effective, easier or quicker, way of doing traditional processes with the aid of a new tool or piece of equipment. This could be some form of evolutionary technology building on traditional methods and equipment or completely new technology.
Please edit, or completely rewrite it. . . .and as we go along, maybe we can come to a consensus. 
QotW: How do you define technology involved in the production of Ceramics?
best,
Pres
 

agree with all this.    does make me wonder if Wedgewood would have liked plastic bags or tubs for storing clay.

Back in the day pots where made all by handbuilding/coiling etc or a kick wheel  driven with a foot  or a stick or a treadle (later invention) or by someone else 
handles where rolled or pulled or slabbed
Indoor plumbing came along as well
Since those days and much of this has been in my lifetime its all changed.(not the indoor plumbing)
Power wheels extruders slab rollers  pug mill and clay mixer and combo machines-they even come all with  electric power now
Pres story on extruder dies sums up how far this has come-I cut my pulled clay handle in 1/2 traced it on the aluminum die and cut it with my jewelers saw from collage jewelry class.
I most likey would still do that way as I like the craftsmen ways still. sure I have power wheels and electric slab rollers but filing it smooth and completing it feels good still to me.
I embrace the parts that save time and my body as a professional potter.Even with all that stuff I'm still been beat up by clay. I'm missing 3 bones in one wrist from overuse after a fall injury long ago I do not recall. Soon to have a bone removed from my other thumb (later in January) no cartilage  between bones from overuse.. (centering I think )as that hurts the most
I will add that clay has also kept me in shape. Moved 1/2 ton today into studio. Keeping moving at my age is a good thing.
The part of clay that has not changes much is how much we have to move it. At least 12 times for me before its sold or dropped off. That adds up over the decades .Especailly when it 10 tons a year. I would love this to be different but even If I had a better studio set up it still would be 10 moves at least .
If I made less stuff -non production potter I would not think about this.I learned long ago not to make my own clay as it was killing my body when I did.Now its more a slow death by clay.
Griffen grips power mixers and wheel all add up to  time and body savings. I'll all in for that. I sponge up all labor saving I ever see from other potters no matter how small from glaze tongs to hot waxing-it all adds up to less time.I do not claen my  throwing wheel much anymore whats the point it gets used to much to bother time wise. I keep my trimming wheel clean as its easy.
Leanring from others was and is a high priority for me. Technology for me is all about Time/labor saving .
I still like paper and lists so some old school left in me.
 
 
 

I don't think 3D printing is faster when it comes to making a mug @Chilly, but it may be tireless when producing 100 or 1000 mugs. Imagining 20 machines cranking out mugs all day. . . tires me out. I think there will always be a call for well crafted hand made ceramic either functional or non functional/decorative or sculptural. Just as there will always be call for well designed aesthetically pleasing massed produced functional or non functional/decorative or sculptural pieces. Then there will be the those that will produce mass produced pieces of now aesthetic value at all as in a widget is a widget and aesthetics is not necessarily functional.
best,
Pres

Hope you & anyone else with some imagination keeps doing this. They are fun to read (& answer). I  haven't been able to think of one to contribute, but maybe someday LOL