Science and Practice

When discussing glass, there are two ways of talking about it. One is the “practical” language used by artists, based on their experience. The other is the “scientific” language used by researchers, based on literature and data. In many cases, these two exist in separate worlds.

However, my goal is to discuss the subject from both of these perspectives: the actual measurements I’ve compiled in my production notes—the thickness of the pieces, firing profiles, finished results, and observations of failures—and primary sources such as peer-reviewed papers and engineering textbooks. I believe that only when these two elements come together can a “theory created by an artist” truly take shape.

Making and thinking. Working with your hands and understanding how things work. These are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they form a cycle. You make predictions based on theory, fire the piece to verify them, observe the results, and then update your theory. Each firing is an “experiment with a sample size of one,” and every line in your notebook becomes data that validates your theory.

Experience alone cannot answer the “why,” and science alone overlooks the “real world.” We must bridge the gap between the two. Writers must build knowledge with their own hands and minds. I believe that this is where new possibilities for creation lie.

---

Learn More

The "cycle of science and practice" refers to an approach that draws on two complementary sources: the artist’s own production notes—which contain accumulated empirical data (thickness, firing profiles, finished states, and observations of failures)—and scientific literature, such as peer-reviewed papers and official manufacturer documents.

It is neither practice alone nor theory alone; only when the two are combined does it constitute a “theory created by artists.”