|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Italy||(Rated C-class)|
The following entries need to be rationalised:
Marshall46 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added to the blbliography - please give ISBN numbers for publications cited if you can. I've also given external links which have good illustrations. The reference to Malaga looks like a quotation - if it is, citation needed. I have changed the description of painting on the glaze to make clear that the pigments are applied to the unfired glaze, which becomes shiny and brilliant white only after firing. Mattias Osterman's book shows how the technique has been revived. I have also tried to clarify "maiolica"/"majolica", but I think the C19th "majolica" wares, with clear glazes over textured surfaces, need an article to themselves.
I have expanded the article on Tin-glazing, which I think is the proper place for technical details. Marshall46 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phrase is only in quotes because it translates obra de Malaga. I wish I could find my Rackham volume. --Wetman 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggested merger with Tin-glazing
I now think this article ought to be merged with Tin-glazing, for two reasons.
1. There is considerable overlap in material between the two articles.
2. The opening statement in this article, that "Maiolica designates Italian tin-glazed earthenware dating from the Renaissance," is not supportable. True, the word was orginally used to designate Italian tin-glazed earthenware, but it is now more widely used to describe tin-glazed earthenware of other periods, e.g. The New Maiolica, a book by Matthias Osterman which describes tin-glazed earthenware being made today.
It would be less confusing for the reader to have a comprehensive article on tin-glazed earthenware, including Renaissance maiolica, earlier Islamic tin-glazed wares, Delft, faience and modern tin-glazed studio pottery. This would follow the precedent of Alan Caiger-Smith's comprehensive account in Tin-glazed Pottery. Marshall46 15:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- A better suggestion: create an article Tin-glazed pottery. Draw together succinct versions of the current maiolica, majolica, faience etc etc, each précis with the usual italicised hatnote Main article.... Final step, an introduction concerning general historical developments and techniques, (i.e. a condensed version of the article tin-glazing). The reasons for separate articles on maiolica and faience will appear from a first scan of the two, distinct relevant literatures. Nested articles, such as these could be, are at the heart of encyclopedic treatment. --Wetman 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and I have started to work on it. It will require several of the articles to be edited to remove inconsistencies and repetition. - Marshall46 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now done. Marshall46 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tidied up Historychecker’s edit, removing repetition and odd statements (e.g. a comparison with the techniques of the Egyptians) and I have moved some passages to more appropriate places. Marshall46 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Glaze materials, local and imported
Wetman has replaced the statement that glaze materials had to be imported, which I removed. Cipriano Piccolpasso says that glaze was made from sand, wine lees, lead and tin. I believe the tin came from Cornwall but sand and wine lees were local. I am not sure about lead. Even many of the oxides were locally abundant: iron and manganese, for example. He says that cobalt came from Venice, which may mean “imported”. Marshall46 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)