Yixing

Mark-S
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:05 pm
Location: Germany

Wed May 05, 2021 6:41 am

Bok wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 6:09 am
Cute dragon fish :)
It's a dragon? Oops :oops: I thought it would be a carp (more specifically a koi). Is there a story behind this pot, like the one from the Yu Hua Long pot?

I am not sure how old this pot is. I haven't seen this shape from F1 yet, but I wouldn't rule this out completely. Looks cool in my opinion so who cares. Especially the spout. Looks a bit like the dragon from "The Reluctant Dragon" with these horns :lol:
Attachments
The Reluctant Dragon
The Reluctant Dragon
A35J72E5CFFNRGMK4BSV7HXO7U.jpg (69.6 KiB) Viewed 3602 times
IMG_20210505_131937.jpg
IMG_20210505_131937.jpg (262.58 KiB) Viewed 3602 times
User avatar
Youzi
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: Shaxi, Yunnan, China
Contact:

Wed May 05, 2021 6:48 am

Mark-S wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 4:58 am
Youzi

I wonder if the more experienced potters had access to better clay in F1. Especially, during the cultural revolution it would make sense that every potter had access to the same raw material.
Interesting question. Maybe @steanze or @Bok

Would know more about earlier teapots and master vs commoner work quality in the 60s, 70s.
User avatar
steanze
Vendor
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: USA

Wed May 05, 2021 8:58 am

Youzi wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 6:48 am
Mark-S wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 4:58 am
Youzi

I wonder if the more experienced potters had access to better clay in F1. Especially, during the cultural revolution it would make sense that every potter had access to the same raw material.
Interesting question. Maybe steanze or Bok

Would know more about earlier teapots and master vs commoner work quality in the 60s, 70s.

in the 60s and 70s it's the same materials to my knowledge. 80s starts to be different.
User avatar
steanze
Vendor
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: USA

Wed May 05, 2021 8:59 am

Mark-S wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 6:41 am
Bok wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 6:09 am
Cute dragon fish :)
It's a dragon? Oops :oops: I thought it would be a carp (more specifically a koi). Is there a story behind this pot, like the one from the Yu Hua Long pot?

I am not sure how old this pot is. I haven't seen this shape from F1 yet, but I wouldn't rule this out completely. Looks cool in my opinion so who cares. Especially the spout. Looks a bit like the dragon from "The Reluctant Dragon" with these horns :lol:
Image
Image
not F1, post 1990s
Mark-S
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:05 pm
Location: Germany

Wed May 05, 2021 9:34 am

in the 60s and 70s it's the same materials to my knowledge. 80s starts to be different.
Thanks, that's helpful. :)
steanze wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 8:59 am
not F1, post 1990s
That's what I thought, too. However, the clay seems to be unusual for this period, very natural with many minerals... but maybe, I only got bad pots from the 90's and after. If anybody knows more about these seals (or the pot) please let me know.
Attachments
IMG_20210505_162133.jpg
IMG_20210505_162133.jpg (281.72 KiB) Viewed 3573 times
IMG_20210505_162159.jpg
IMG_20210505_162159.jpg (374.21 KiB) Viewed 3573 times
DailyTX
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:43 pm
Location: United States

Wed May 05, 2021 1:22 pm

@Mark-S
Very cool teapot, the expressions from those dragons look lively haha. I own a decor pot that has a foo dog with blue eyes riding on a dragon turtle. The pot is about 500-800 ml, and I use it to water my plants ;)
Mark-S
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:05 pm
Location: Germany

Wed May 05, 2021 1:44 pm

DailyTX wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 1:22 pm
Mark-S
Very cool teapot, the expressions from those dragons look lively haha. I own a decor pot that has a foo dog with blue eyes riding on a dragon turtle. The pot is about 500-800 ml, and I use it to water my plants ;)
I like those unusual teapots, but I haven't seen a foo dog riding on a turtle yet. This is a bat riding a turtle: https://www.ebay.com/itm/224447211983 :lol:
Goose
New user
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 06, 2021 11:27 am

Thu May 06, 2021 12:57 pm

Hi everyone, sorry to barge in...

I'm new here and I hope to learn a few things about clay. I've been drinking good quality tea for about 12 years now and most of the time I use gaiwans (procelain mostly). I do have a few clay teapots, which I started using more frequently. They are all recently made. One is I think machine made or slipcast and I believe the other three are half handmade. They were all in the 50 to 90 euro price range (the last three i bought in the last 5 years or so). The cheapest one, the one I think is machine made, was part of a set that included six cups and a gong dao bei, which I don't use. The cups get too hot and I prefer a glass pitcher.

I of course asked some questions when I bought them, but to be honest, I can't really remember much other than that they are not fully handmade and that the first three would probably work with shu, sheng and a lot of oolongs and that I should try it out and see what works for me. For the last one I said I wanted one for dan congs but wasn't sure yet and that I might use it for wuyi yancha and based on that I was given a few options.

I use one for gaoshan oolong, one for shu and one for sheng pu erh and the newest one I've been using for dan congs. At the moment I'm quite satisfied, except for the cheapest one which I use for gaoshan oolong because it pours too slowly... I can work with it, but a faster pour would be more convenient. This is something that I've paid attention to when buying the others, which all pour much faster. I've did a few experiments to see if I can taste any difference. Generally the tea's a bit softer, less astringent but not too much.

Now I've become a bit more interested in them, and I'd like to know more. I know I didn't buy anything special and I will return with my questions to the vendor as well. But she's a tea expert, not a clay teapot expert. She does have a nice collection of vintage yixing teapots (family heirlooms so to speak), which she does not use very often and a few handmade modern ones from respected modern masters or their apprentices (but these prices are way beyond what I can afford, the cheapest one being $950). Anyway, her advice to me has always been to stick with gaiwans and these cheaper clay pots, or if I do want to spend more to get educated about clay before making any big purchases or to buy from potters with a long standing reputation.

Now, my questions are the following:

- would anyone here be able and willing to identify what I bought based on pictures alone (of the pots, stamp or seal at the bottom or in the lid, and I think I might have some sort of documentation in Chinese)?
- would it be worth it to figure out or maybe it doesn't really matter in that price range?
- if they are identified, would anyone be able to give advice about which teas they are most suited for (because I've been using them that often and that long I believe I can still dedicate them to other types of tea)

Can't hurt to ask right. Thanks.
User avatar
steanze
Vendor
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: USA

Thu May 06, 2021 6:17 pm

Goose wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 12:57 pm
Hi everyone, sorry to barge in...

I'm new here and I hope to learn a few things about clay. I've been drinking good quality tea for about 12 years now and most of the time I use gaiwans (procelain mostly). I do have a few clay teapots, which I started using more frequently. They are all recently made. One is I think machine made or slipcast and I believe the other three are half handmade. They were all in the 50 to 90 euro price range (the last three i bought in the last 5 years or so). The cheapest one, the one I think is machine made, was part of a set that included six cups and a gong dao bei, which I don't use. The cups get too hot and I prefer a glass pitcher.

I of course asked some questions when I bought them, but to be honest, I can't really remember much other than that they are not fully handmade and that the first three would probably work with shu, sheng and a lot of oolongs and that I should try it out and see what works for me. For the last one I said I wanted one for dan congs but wasn't sure yet and that I might use it for wuyi yancha and based on that I was given a few options.

I use one for gaoshan oolong, one for shu and one for sheng pu erh and the newest one I've been using for dan congs. At the moment I'm quite satisfied, except for the cheapest one which I use for gaoshan oolong because it pours too slowly... I can work with it, but a faster pour would be more convenient. This is something that I've paid attention to when buying the others, which all pour much faster. I've did a few experiments to see if I can taste any difference. Generally the tea's a bit softer, less astringent but not too much.

Now I've become a bit more interested in them, and I'd like to know more. I know I didn't buy anything special and I will return with my questions to the vendor as well. But she's a tea expert, not a clay teapot expert. She does have a nice collection of vintage yixing teapots (family heirlooms so to speak), which she does not use very often and a few handmade modern ones from respected modern masters or their apprentices (but these prices are way beyond what I can afford, the cheapest one being $950). Anyway, her advice to me has always been to stick with gaiwans and these cheaper clay pots, or if I do want to spend more to get educated about clay before making any big purchases or to buy from potters with a long standing reputation.

Now, my questions are the following:

- would anyone here be able and willing to identify what I bought based on pictures alone (of the pots, stamp or seal at the bottom or in the lid, and I think I might have some sort of documentation in Chinese)?
- would it be worth it to figure out or maybe it doesn't really matter in that price range?
- if they are identified, would anyone be able to give advice about which teas they are most suited for (because I've been using them that often and that long I believe I can still dedicate them to other types of tea)

Can't hurt to ask right. Thanks.
Hi! Welcome, it is always great to see one more person interested in tea and Yixing teapots joining the forum! Identifying the seals/craftsmen does not matter much in that price range, but we might be able to get a sense of whether the clay is authentic Yixing clay, what type of clay it is, and what teas it might work well with :)
User avatar
Bok
Vendor
Posts: 5782
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:55 am
Location: Taiwan

Thu May 06, 2021 7:53 pm

@Goose Welcome! ditto, please share, we are always(at least I assume so) curious to see what others are using. Also, you never know... stranger things have happened and shit turned to gold :lol:
User avatar
wave_code
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:10 pm
Location: Germany

Fri May 07, 2021 2:53 pm

Just some random thoughts on "elegance"...

I've been thinking about talking to a studio for commissioning a pot for a bit, probably in a larger size, but I've yet to find or figure out exactly what I've been looking for... one aspect I thought for a while was that I like the look of rougher clay on antique pots and this can certainly be recreated to a reasonable degree, but I think it really comes down to proportions and shape. thicker and stubbier or chunkier but proportional shapes I find more and more appealing regardless of size. maybe this is one reason I've also found nixing just as or even more interesting for modern pots due to thicker clay and stubbier shapes, or admire a lot of older CZ pots which while quite different proportionally have this wonderful roughness about them.

What I'm wondering about mainly is what drove the shift away from this style - was it increased quality in clay refinement/processing, technique, or just desired aesthetics? I've been admiring a lot of @Bok's stubbier antiques for example, or a lot of the archived pieces that TeasWeLike had from late Qing/early ROC. I mean timeline wise it seems like around the start of the factory period was when this happened slowly and progressively up to modern pots - things start to look longer, thinner, narrower, more defined... spouts narrow, angles and curves get sharper, handles get thinner, etc... of course I'm speaking in generalizations here but this is how things look to me. I'm operating off a guess, but was the ability to imitate 'finer' or 'more refined' shapes got easier over time as firing and clay consistency and mass production technique evolved, and these were therefore more desirable locally and/or deemed better for export?

This all sort of started coming together in my head while looking through the Yinchen studio site at various designs and seeing where they had taken a classic shape and stated that they altered the handle and spout to make it more "elegant", and I thought to myself that maybe what is now considered more elegant is actually what makes the pot less appealing to me or makes the proportions look less appealing or interesting. It seems like there are some artists and studios that do still lean a bit more in this older style but I'd love to see more examples if anyone has any recommendations of particular studios or artists to check out. Or if theres any good resources particularly on these older style shapes for research/admiration purposes.
User avatar
steanze
Vendor
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: USA

Fri May 07, 2021 3:09 pm

wave_code wrote:
Fri May 07, 2021 2:53 pm
Just some random thoughts on "elegance"...

I've been thinking about talking to a studio for commissioning a pot for a bit, probably in a larger size, but I've yet to find or figure out exactly what I've been looking for... one aspect I thought for a while was that I like the look of rougher clay on antique pots and this can certainly be recreated to a reasonable degree, but I think it really comes down to proportions and shape. thicker and stubbier or chunkier but proportional shapes I find more and more appealing regardless of size. maybe this is one reason I've also found nixing just as or even more interesting for modern pots due to thicker clay and stubbier shapes, or admire a lot of older CZ pots which while quite different proportionally have this wonderful roughness about them.

What I'm wondering about mainly is what drove the shift away from this style - was it increased quality in clay refinement/processing, technique, or just desired aesthetics? I've been admiring a lot of Bok's stubbier antiques for example, or a lot of the archived pieces that TeasWeLike had from late Qing/early ROC. I mean timeline wise it seems like around the start of the factory period was when this happened slowly and progressively up to modern pots - things start to look longer, thinner, narrower, more defined... spouts narrow, angles and curves get sharper, handles get thinner, etc... of course I'm speaking in generalizations here but this is how things look to me. I'm operating off a guess, but was the ability to imitate 'finer' or 'more refined' shapes got easier over time as firing and clay consistency and mass production technique evolved, and these were therefore more desirable locally and/or deemed better for export?

This all sort of started coming together in my head while looking through the Yinchen studio site at various designs and seeing where they had taken a classic shape and stated that they altered the handle and spout to make it more "elegant", and I thought to myself that maybe what is now considered more elegant is actually what makes the pot less appealing to me or makes the proportions look less appealing or interesting. It seems like there are some artists and studios that do still lean a bit more in this older style but I'd love to see more examples if anyone has any recommendations of particular studios or artists to check out. Or if theres any good resources particularly on these older style shapes for research/admiration purposes.
Nice to see a post with more general thoughts about aesthetics. I understand what you mean about the thicker shapes... there are still pots on the thicker side, but they are not as commonly seen among the offerings of western facing vendors. Here is one of my favorite rounder/thicker pots, with textured clay:


liansheng_3_small.jpg
liansheng_3_small.jpg (438.6 KiB) Viewed 3374 times

One of the most famous craftsmen in the second half of the XX century (He Daohong) built a career around pots that have exaggerated thickness in some of the features.
User avatar
LeoFox
Posts: 1777
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:01 pm
Location: Washington DC

Fri May 07, 2021 4:33 pm

I heard the argument that once you intentionally try to make something look "rough" or wabi sabi, you lose the spirit of true roughness. Based on this argument true roughness is simply born out of a haphazard way of doing things. The irregularities are mostly accidental and the intention is just to make something quickly for every day use - and not meant to be obsessed over. Of course this spirit runs counter to modern market demands.

If intentional roughness is introduced, then you can argue it is not really rough..but pretending to be rough.
faj
Posts: 710
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:45 am
Location: Quebec

Fri May 07, 2021 5:44 pm

LeoFox wrote:
Fri May 07, 2021 4:33 pm
If intentional roughness is introduced, then you can argue it is not really rough..but pretending to be rough.
If I intentionally paint a room in blue, it is blue. It is not "accidentally-blue", but it is blue, unless the meaning of the word "blue" is distorted to the point where it no longer corresponds to its widely understood meaning.

If intentionally making something rough makes it "not really rough", then by "rough" one really mean "accidentally rough". It is perfectly OK to want an object that is accidentally rough, but the difference is not in the object itself, it is in your understanding of how the object came to be.

If an artisan uses a method that is known to yield an "accidentally rough" result, is that still true roughness? Maybe the "real roughness" is about using a method that is chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with the roughness it yields. If so, then seeking that roughness is about seeking objects for reasons that have nothing to do with the intent of their creator. It might actually entail rejecting works of art or craft because their creator had an intent and successfully achieved it.

It seems to me turning aesthetic preferences into systems of values or rules is fraught with peril...
User avatar
steanze
Vendor
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: USA

Fri May 07, 2021 6:07 pm

LeoFox wrote:
Fri May 07, 2021 4:33 pm
I heard the argument that once you intentionally try to make something look "rough" or wabi sabi, you lose the spirit of true roughness. Based on this argument true roughness is simply born out of a haphazard way of doing things. The irregularities are mostly accidental and the intention is just to make something quickly for every day use - and not meant to be obsessed over. Of course this spirit runs counter to modern market demands.

If intentional roughness is introduced, then you can argue it is not really rough..but pretending to be rough.
I think we need to distinguish thick shapes and rough textures from wabi-sabi. Often thick shapes and rough textures are seen in Yixing teapots, but they are not wabi-sabi, the shapes are still characterized by a pursuit of symmetry and elegant curves. Rough vs smooth, thin vs thick, are just features, they can all be used in the service of an aesthetic of perfection or in the service of an aesthetics of imperfection.

Regarding the presence or absence of purpose in imperfection, I have encountered different arguments. Your argument that the imperfection should be accidental and the outcome of producing something quickly for daily use sounds more similar to the views of Yanagi Soetsu and Shoji Hamada. However, there are also views that distinguish between wabi sabi and "sloppy", holding that not all sloppy work is wabi sabi. In these views, wabi sabi means getting to the point of producing works that are not just irregular, but irregular in an artful way, and of doing so effortlessly. This "effortlessly" though is very different from "quickly". If you see for example the number of times Arakawa Toyozo destroyed all the pieces coming out of his kiln before becoming a Living National Treasure... the ability to effortlessly produce something which is not just sloppy but is artfully irregular can come at the cost of a very long process of research for the artisan. You can see this also to some extent in Toyo Kaneshige, and probably most clearly in the works by Kitaoji Rosanjin.
Post Reply