Talk:Celadon

Seven Wonders?

Korean Celadon is considered one of the seven wonders of the Asian world.

Anon contribution moved here for discussion. Considered by whom? For what period? Source or attribution? Is the comment relevant to the article at large? WBardwin 05:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point! The historical fact that the Japanese abducted most of the celadon craftsmen (as well as other craftsmen--for example roof tiles--whom they murdered after teaching the Korean technique to Japanese) gives adequate testimony to the value of Korean celadon. But here is a subjective value: it must be seen, it is, after all, Art; as such, there can be no better reference than seeing it. Other attempts remain inferior to Korean celadon, the peculiar translucent color of which cannot be shown on any website. Any talk about Art inherently rates its importance and so implies relevance in this article on celadon. Witzelsucht 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which way should this article go? Just Korean celadon? That would be a worthy article in itself. Celadon as a whole is an enormouly diverse and historically long subject. Iwanafish.

Someone is infatuated with the lousy photo of the Korean Nat. Musuem celadon censer. Any hint of the texture and quality of celedon is lost in the photo which looks something like a birdhouse. Get over it.--Iwanafish 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants this page to be a Korean Celedon page then admit so.--Iwanafish 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of terms

Isn't celadon same thing as porcelain? (Wikimachine 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

No ------ celadon is a glaze family/technique and, by extension, a category of finished ware. Of Korean invention, it became an Asian artform. Definitions on ceramic and pottery related articles is a long term Wiki problem. I actively encourage a discussion of vocabulary on this and other articles. WBardwin 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

THE DUCK

The duck doesn't represent any of the classic shapes and styles of Asian celadon, thus is not worthy of pride of place at the beginning of the article. --Iwanafish 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

@Johnbod: I think this needs to be a couple of sentences meatier....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celadon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220235248/http://portlandartmuseum.org/collections/presentations/Eternal-Celadon-Ceramics-and-Jades-from-East-Asia to http://portlandartmuseum.org/collections/presentations/Eternal-Celadon-Ceramics-and-Jades-from-East-Asia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Greenware?

I cannot find any contemporary instances of celadon pottery being referred to as greenware. There is no citation in the article, and furthermore “greenware” already carries a different meaning in terms of ceramics. I removed a section from the introduction which contained this information. It should not be replaced until there is adequate citation that “Greenware” can refer to both unfired clay as well as celadon, but even if there is basis for it, the term seems to be archaic. Dr. Bepsi (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Au contraire, Docteur - see this basic search or this one. You should be more cautious. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

yea I also cant find the copyright dates because I am doing a research project... 2600:1700:A3E0:BBE0:650B:3119:3AAC:CF84 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

greenware is not a term used in practice for iron-blue and green glazed ware, at least among ceramicists or researchers that I know of. usually it is referred to either generally as celadon ware or more specifically, such as seiji ware for japanese celadons or yingqing or longquan for celadons from those specific kilns (and thus a specific style of celadon). Vikfrs (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I suppose you don't know the people who write the definitions at Christie's or the British Museum then? See the google link (though they split the words). Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Johnbod not personally, no, but considering the Christie's definition of celadon as a glaze and description of the process by which it is made and applied is laughably incorrect I'm not inclined to follow their terminology. Nigel Wood sometimes uses greenwares to refer to Chinese wares with a celadon glaze, as there was a point in the 70s and 80s where certain scholars were trying to move away from the term celadon, but it doesn't seem to have stuck. greenwares and celadon wares are pretty much interchangeable, there is no distinction in what they describe and it just so happens that calling ceramic pieces "greenware" when that already means something in ceramics is incredibly confusing and not necessary when a different, more commonly used term also exists. Vikfrs (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

not to mention the British museum glossary itself has "Chinese green ware" as an aka for celadon ware. nowhere in either of these sources is it implied that green ware is the more common definition among specialists, as claimed in the intro. because that would be incorrect. Vikfrs (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

also "green ware" or greenwares seem to have been used p much exclusively to refer to Chinese celadon ware, and as such doesn't cover seiji or cheong-ja or any other kind. it also doesn't cover contemporary celadon ware.

the metropolitan museum of art also lists their pieces as celadon glazed, not greenware Vikfrs (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

celadons composition and colors

celadon glazes are not limited to the jade green color called celadon, that is an incorrect categorization. celadons can range from the icey blue of seikakuji and yingqing to the deeper almost olive green of later longquan wares, they're still considered celadons. the classification has more to do with the composition and firing method (mainly small amounts of iron in reduction). in addition, the addition of titania is a feature of almost all celadons, excepting the blues. it's necessary to get the greens. Vikfrs (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

also crazing is not in any capacity definitional (or even particularly common) element of celadon glazes and should not be included as such. Vikfrs (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The article could probably be more precise, but I don't think it says these things. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Johnbod from the intro: "Celadon is a term for pottery denoting both wares glazed in the jade green celadon color, also known as greenware or "green ware" (the term specialists now tend to use), and a type of transparent glaze, often with small cracks, that was first used on greenware, but later used on other porcelains." the small cracks is what I was talking about when I said crazing, which is the technical term for those small cracks. crazing can occur in any glaze, but it is neither emblematic of celadons nor, to my knowledge, particularly notable in celadon ware.

besides that, as well as the other things I pointed out that are written there (that celadon can refer to work glazed with a celadon glaze, not just work that is jade green, or the glaze itself, which is a reduced iron glaze that can be a range of colors and for which crazing is not a notable feature), I do believe that the earliest celadons were on stoneware, not porcelain. greenwares (not greenware, which is unfired ceramics) is another term that is sometimes used for chinese ceramics glazed with a celadon glaze but again, is not limited to jade green nor does it refer specifically to porcelain, which came about later at Jingedzen I believe, along with yingqing glazes which were light blue celadons. greenwares also refer to a great range of wares both in color, clay body, and time period. to say "celadon glazes were first used on greenwares but then on other porcelain" makes no sense, because the earliest greenwares were not porcelain and later Chinese celadon-glazed porcelain wares are also greenwares. Vikfrs (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)