From: "Ken Berman" <dramatontheater-AT-hotmail.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:42:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Fundraising Parties



Christopher: Your responses are in and of themselves blanket staements and 
also way too long  winded to invest the time in a point by point rebuttal, 
sorry.



Ken Berman
Dramaton Theater



----Original Message Follows----
From: Christopher Hudert <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>
Reply-To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Fundraising Parties
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 02:02:29 -0400

On Sep 3, 2006, at 11:50 AM, puppetry arts theatre wrote:

 > You guys have got big problems. I don't agree what so ever. Its a
 > matter of opinion- but dude- get over yourself.
   Well, the article was certainly right about that, you are defensive.
So, you have a right to your opinion, but I don't? Okay, that's your
opinion. And what exactly do you see as my "problems"? I would be
interested to know. You can reply on or off list, it doesn't matter to
me.

On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:28 PM, mjm wrote:

 > Just asking questions.
 > What, in your experience, are the top reasons why an individual
 > attends one of the parties?
 > And, what, in your experience, is the reason for an individual to be
 > nude at the party?
    As far as I am concerned, the party and why people are there is not
really the issue, beyond the fact that it is a fundraiser for youth
puppet theatre. I am NOT under the impression, from the article anyway,
that the main reason people come is to support the theater. Tim could
tell us for certain, but advertised on Craigslist and Manhunt, I would
guess they come because it is a partially to fully nude gay party in a
private home. Nothing wrong with that (though there are plenty who
would say otherwise).
    The NY Magazine article, for those who have not followed the link, is
titled "Taking it Off for the Kids" with a sub line of "How a biweekly
party for undressed gay men saved a children's puppetry theater." The
link comes up as "How a Naked Gay Party Saved Brooklyn's Puppetry Arts
Theatre". Does this not ring little bells of potential conflict and/or
controversy?
   BTW, it has been going on for four years and now raises about $15K a
year for the theater. Not bad change, I must say. Tim, are these
parties advertised as fundraiser for TPAT, or just as underwear
parties?

On Sep 3, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Ken Berman wrote:

 > Tim: I spoke to you sometime ago and found you to be a devoted and
 > driven
 > person.  I do not know what else goes on at your parties other than
 > people
 > enjoying a freedom to express themselves within a private sanctuary.
 > What
 > you do to raise money as long as it is safe is fine by me, and I would
 > be
 > happy to bet that you are not creating any unsafe environment for
 > minors or
 > those without the mental facility to know what hey are doing.
   At no point has anyone said or implied that minors were present or
harmed by these events. Not that Tim was less than honorable in his
actions or intents. What he is doing with his puppet theater work seem
to be a good thing. Nothing wrong with the underwear parties. Using the
underwear parties as a fundraiser for the youth theater is a
questionable thing. Not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly
questionable, thus the discussion and differences of opinion.

 >   I am also not
 > worried about how one puppeteer may reflect on the puppet community, I
 > am
 > responsible for myself, as you are.  Believe it or not, "puppeteer" is
 > not
 > defined as a "type of person", it is an art form that some people
 > practice,
 > this makes them no more similar or repsonsbile for each other than
 > painters,
 > sculptors, etc.
    This, IMHO, is a closed minded isolationist statement. If you
actually believe your actions exist in a vacuum you are sadly mistaken.
It is my opinion, and one I believe is shared by others, that if you
are a professional you have a responsibility to those who share the
profession to honorably uphold the profession. (Some professions even
have associations and boards to see this is done.) A reminder, we are
not talking about "puppeteer" in a completely broad sense. We are
talking about puppetry for youth. I don't think there would be much, if
anything, to discuss here if this was all for puppetry for adults. An
underwear party, gay or otherwise, to raise funds for an adult theater?
A bit unconventional, but big fat hairy (or manscaped) deal. But that
is not what we are talking about, is it?
    Any publicity that casts a negative light on one children's
puppeteer, casts it on all children's puppeteers. Like it or not, when
working with youth you put yourself in the position of role model. Your
"off time", when it comes into the public eye in a manner that can be
PERCEIVED as negative by the majority (or vocal minority, for that
matter) becomes an issue. Don't think the actions of one have anything
to do with, or impact, others? As a professional clown I have no direct
association with the life or actions of John Wayne Gacey or those of
Pennywise from Steven King's "IT", but the ramifications of their
actions cast a pall over clowning - and one of them is completely
fictional. Though they were in the news years ago I still get
occasional questions and voiced concerns about them. Extreme examples,
but I use them to make the point, not to imply any kind of parallel.

 > Otherwise, by the same thinking, Robert Mapplethorpe and
 > Andre Serrano would have destroyed the notion of offering photogrpahy
 > classes in high schools.
    And in some places they did. And the Mapplethorpe issue did (and
still does) seriously adversely affect the funds for not-for-profits,
both in donations to the grant funding organizations and to individual
not-for-profits.

 >  Raise money as you deem fit, and do not allow
 > anyone to tell you you need to figure something else out because it
 > effects
 > them, when they do not even know you or your actions.
   That's a pretty blanket statement too. Especially as you don't know me
or my actions. How about advertising raising money by running over cats
with lawnmowers? That would still be okay, right? I mean, it doesn't
affect you you or me. And it's for a good cause so don't repress my
choices or fundraising abilities. (Again, I'd beg to differ, but...)
No one said that Tim had to stop. Some of us expressed the opinion that
it might be in his best interest, as well as that of the general
children's puppetry community, to rethink what he is doing. Or at the
very least how he is publicizing it.

On Sep 3, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Mathieu René wrote:

 > This discussion is fascinating.
 >
 > I think this is the kind of topic this list is perfect for, as it
 > deals with
 > many aspects of our work, and has many ramifications.
 >
 > My take on the fundraising situation: At first reading the article, I
 > tought
 > it was a good idea to raise money fast, then when I realised it was
 > fundraising for a children show, it made me uneasy. Not because I was
 > against the kind of event, nor because any adult situation shouldn't
 > have
 > any link to children activities (see how people overreact, still
 > nowadays,
 > when teachers try to teach honest and open Sex Education in class).
 > I was uneasy because of what people would think. Of what reactions
 > would
 > rise from the public and what consequences would come. I was uneasy
 > because
 > a Puppet Theatre in danger is a sad thing indeed.
   Mathieu, you have hit the nail on the head. Indeed, not all but SOME
adult situations are best not linked to children's activities because
of the conclusions (erroneous or otherwise) that people would jump to
and the reactions that would arise.

 > <clip>
 > As for one puppeteer's actions reflecting an image on the rest of us
 > puppeteers, I think it is a little premature to see it as such.
   Perhaps, in this case, it is a bit premature. Perhaps this will be
barely a blip, and unseen by most. I hope you are right.

 > One puppeteer doing one kind of activity should not be enough to
 > reflect on all of us.
   Gee, does the name "Jim Henson" ring a bell to you? Here is one person
who's activities, and to a great extent only a small part of his
activities, reflect on all puppeteers. Thankfully this is generally a
good reflection, but certainly it can be used a an example. His
children's puppetry (though in actuality it was not just for children)
overshadowed the rest of his work and colors the general public
perception of puppetry today. Something negative could very well
adversely reflect on, and affect, all of us.

 > <clip>
 > It's all about perceptions.
    True, especially in such a visual world as puppetry. And the
perceptions this article could lead to are, IMHO, not the best ones.
 >
 > What makes an Art Gallery's exhibition opening more classy than a
 > similar
 > kind of event at a local pub?
 > Nothing. Both events involve people looking at Art, some may be
 > pompous,
 > some may be cruel, some may get drunk, some may get "lucky", etc...
   Actually, I would have to disagree. An Art Gallery's function is to
showcase the art. The pub's function is to provide liquid refreshment
and social gathering. True, you could hold a art exhibition in a pub,
but the expectations and preconceived notions of the clients coming in
would be different from those going to a gallery. Same with a puppet
show. I, personally, would not be likely to do a kids show at night in
a beer pub that was geared to an adult crowd, and would have some
reservations about doing it during the day. Now, a family oriented
neighborhood pub might be different, so let's use a biker bar as the
example. Image and expectations. Yes there are some exceptions, but
that is another discussion.

On Sep 3, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Kismet wrote:

 > This is great!
 > I wonder how much of the problem is the underpants (Its fun to wear
 > your underpants to the beach but not to a party????) and how much
 > relates to a GAY running a puppet show for kids? Oh the depravity!
 > (mock gesture of shock/horror.)
 > Good on ya Tim...and love the puppets.
    I don't know where you live, but most places I have been (in the US,
anyway) it is not okay to wear just your underpants on the beach unless
you are a very young child. A swimsuit is not quite the same. Sometimes
it's even less than most underwear, but that is a different issue.
    For me, personally, NONE of this has to do with a gay running a
puppet show for kids. If we wanted to rule that out we would eliminate
a lot of really fine puppetry, wouldn't we. The issue is the choice of
an underwear party as the fundraiser. It leads, in many minds, to a
question of what other possibly inappropriate choices might be made.
Why not an underwear party for kids? THAT would go over big, wouldn't
it?

On Sep 3, 2006, at 7:23 PM, mjm wrote:

 > <clip> an activity that provides substantial puppet company fiscal
 > support  warrants ongoing discussion and examination. Just my opinion.
Sure, let's discuss it. I thought that was what we were doing, but
let's also discuss what others are doing on an ongoing basis that
brings them substantial fiscal support. Tim, and other could gain from
the discussion. I am sure no one would object to learning new ways to
earn money for their not-for-profit.

On Sep 3, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Mark S. Segal wrote:

 > Is this another kettle of fish???? That you have gotten us into Ollie?
    More like a can of worms, eh?

 > As much as I hate to do it :) I agree (somewhat with Christopher)
Careful there, you might get dragged over to the dark side. Feel the
force?

 > It doesn't really matter what you are using for fund raising
 > activities if
 > it is for or impacts on a family/children kind of audience and  you are
 > making news about your activities then it should have the sensitivity
 > for
 > that market.
 > Otherwise you do run the major risk of having it impact negatively on
 > your
 > bookings...FOR THAT  MARKET
 >
 > By the way the key words there are making news.....
 > <clip>
 > Tim - by making news of the news you just open yourself up to possible
 > (not
 > certain but possible) negative repercussions. I think....
I agree that by making news of the events the door is opened. In
entertainment for the youth market one should be mindful of not only
what they do, but how what they do could be perceived. Note, I didn't
say what the facts are or how thing SHOULD be perceived, but how they
COULD be perceived.

Well, I've rambled long enough. I look forward to more open discussion
that (hopefully) doesn't include a lot of name calling.

Christopher
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: 
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org




_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org