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
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.

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)