File puptcrit/puptcrit.0907, message 73


Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:03:17 -0400
From: Alexander Winfield <sheepwpunks-AT-gmail.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] how to consider



--0015175cb50c8e9305046e6f6357

I am not familiar with Gustave Baumann as an aritst, but he would not be
unique among in history as an amateur who achieved not inconsiderable
success in his field. I am more familiar with writers, and two immediately
spring to mind: H.P. Lovecraft and Franz Kafka. While both writers did
publish some stories, the vast majority of their works remained unpublished
in their lifetime and their primary source of income was not their art
(Kafka famously worked at a variety of low governmental jobs, and Lovecraft
for much of his existence relied on the fortunes of his generous aunts to
survive). For various reasons - not inconsiderable among them a sense of
inadequacy in their work the two shared - they pursued professional artistic
careers only haphazardly, with limited achievements, easily discouraged by
initial failures. And in both of these cases it took a second, interested
party to take their works and push them into publication after the authors'
deaths (August Derleth - a young 'fan' - in the case of Lovecraft, and Max
Brod in the case of Kafka). If not for these second parties, these friends
of the authors, who believed in the quality of their works when most
publishers did not, and pushed for it with all the vigor the authors
themselves lacked, we might never have heard of these two rather
extraordinairy men.    There is another instance of a famous amateur that I
thought of: Vincent Van Gogh. While he dedicated himself to his art mind
body and soul, the man barely made a cent of his own work in his lifetime.
It was his brother Theo that kept him alive and working through charity
essentially, and it was Theo's son who, raised on stories o his tragically
brilliant uncle, who would finally push Van Gogh's work enough to earn him
the posthumous recognition he would earn today. I've known contemporaries
with comparable determination to Van Gogh, and earning comparable success.
Other recognized artists that I know have referred to them as amateurs, when
they are feeling generous.
   What is all this meant to illustrate? I'm not certain. I believe
Lovecraft and Kafka and perhaps Van Gogh could have been successful in their
lifetimes if they had more agressive attitudes and better business savvy -
but then perhaps in possessing and encouraging such qualities they might
have lost others? Certainly I think if Kafka was a forceful and confident
presence with the gusto to get his work out there and published - well, such
a personality could probably not have written 'The Metamorphosis' with such
painful honesty.
  As for Gustave Baumann...you say that he was already a successful artist
when he began to work with puppets? Once a fellow has earned a certain
degree of respect from the public, the public will be all the quicker to
praise his other enterprises, less because they are equally impressed with
the artistic enterprises but more because it is easy and seems right to
lavish praise on an already successful man. Performing in the street has
taught me this - success breeds admiration in the audience much more than
artistic merit. Most street performers focus on building a crowd and
encouraging donations (which works on the principle of momentum - the more
donating, the more you'll get) rather than their skill sets. I might
reference 'Being John Malkovich' which, among other things, followed a poor
puppeteer who, without chaning his style at all, could only achieve success
when he usurped the body of a famous man.

sincerely,

Alexander

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Robert Rogers <
robertrogers-AT-robertrogerspuppets.com> wrote:

>  My original question about the artist Gustave Baumann has gotten me
> wondering...here's a very accomplished artist who happened to pursue an
> interest in puppetry.  Not professionally (that is, for money) but with what
> we might call artistic success.  I don't know exactly how to gauge his
> influence in the world of puppetry, but his work is definitely somewhere in
> the historic timeline, and here I am writing about him.  (Two playbills from
> his productions are reprinted in McPharlin's book on page 368.)
>
> Similarly, W. A. Dwiggins ran a very respectable, private marionette
> enterprise, and I know that he is very well regarded.
>
> But here's the question (and maybe it doesn't matter): why is it that, when
> it comes to puppetry, the work of professionals, hobbyists, enthusiasts, or
> whatever you want to call them, are often given equal consideration (some
> amateurs are better than some working stiffs), while this is not the case in
> other performing arts disciplines?
>
> For example, in the field of classical music, who praises some fantastic
> violinist who only plays for his or her family at holiday time?  Or what
> innovative dancer, who only dances in his or her home studio is written
> about as an innovator?
>
> Are there different standards when it comes to puppetry?  Or are we
> puppeteers all the smarter for not making such distinctions?
>
> Robert Rogers
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
> Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
> Archives: http://www.driftline.org
>
>

--0015175cb50c8e9305046e6f6357

HTML VERSION:

I am not familiar with Gustave Baumann as an aritst, but he would not be unique among in history as an amateur who achieved not inconsiderable success in his field. I am more familiar with writers, and two immediately spring to mind: H.P. Lovecraft and Franz Kafka. While both writers did publish some stories, the vast majority of their works remained unpublished in their lifetime and their primary source of income was not their art (Kafka famously worked at a variety of low governmental jobs, and Lovecraft for much of his existence relied on the fortunes of his generous aunts to survive). For various reasons - not inconsiderable among them a sense of inadequacy in their work the two shared - they pursued professional artistic careers only haphazardly, with limited achievements, easily discouraged by initial failures. And in both of these cases it took a second, interested party to take their works and push them into publication after the authors' deaths (August Derleth - a young 'fan' - in the case of Lovecraft, and Max Brod in the case of Kafka). If not for these second parties, these friends of the authors, who believed in the quality of their works when most publishers did not, and pushed for it with all the vigor the authors themselves lacked, we might never have heard of these two rather extraordinairy men.=A0
=A0=A0 There is another instance of a famous amateur that I thought of: Vincent Van Gogh. While he dedicated himself to his art mind body and soul, the man barely made a cent of his own work in his lifetime. It was his brother Theo that kept him alive and working through charity essentially, and it was Theo's son who, raised on stories o his tragically brilliant uncle, who would finally push Van Gogh's work enough to earn him the posthumous recognition he would earn today. I've known contemporaries with comparable determination to Van Gogh, and earning comparable success. Other recognized artists that I know have referred to them as amateurs, when they are feeling generous.
=A0=A0 What is all this meant to illustrate? I'm not certain. I believe Lovecraft and Kafka and perhaps Van Gogh could have been successful in their lifetimes if they had more agressive attitudes and better business savvy - but then perhaps in possessing and encouraging such qualities they might have lost others? Certainly I think if Kafka was a forceful and confident presence with the gusto to get his work out there and published - well, such a personality could probably not have written 'The Metamorphosis' with such painful honesty.=A0
=A0=A0As for Gustave Baumann...you say that he was already a successful artist when he began to work with puppets? Once a fellow has earned a certain degree of respect from the public, the public will be all the quicker to praise his other enterprises, less because they are equally impressed with the artistic enterprises but more because it is easy and seems right to lavish praise on an already successful man. Performing in the street has taught me this - success breeds admiration in the audience much more than artistic merit. Most street performers focus on building a crowd and encouraging donations (which works on the principle of momentum - the more donating, the more you'll get) rather than their skill sets. I might reference 'Being John Malkovich' which, among other things, followed a poor puppeteer who, without chaning his style at all, could only achieve success when he usurped the body of a famous man.=A0

sincerely,

Alexander

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Robert Rogers <robertrogers-AT-robertrogerspuppets.com> wrote:
My original question about the artist Gustave Baumann has gotten me wondering...here's a very accomplished artist who happened to pursue an interest in puppetry.=A0 Not professionally (that is, for money) but with what we might call artistic success.=A0 I don't know exactly how to gauge his influence in the world of puppetry, but his work is definitely somewhere in the historic timeline, and here I am writing about him.=A0 (Two playbills from his productions are reprinted in McPharlin's book on page 368.)
=A0
Similarly, W. A. Dwiggins=A0ran a very respectable, private marionette enterprise, and I know that he is very well regarded.
=A0
But here's the question (and maybe it doesn't matter): why is it that, when it comes to puppetry, the work of professionals, hobbyists, enthusiasts, or whatever you want to call them, are often given equal consideration (some amateurs are better than some working stiffs), while this is not the case in other performing arts disciplines?
=A0
For example, in the field of classical music, who praises some fantastic violinist who only plays for his or her family at holiday time?=A0 Or what innovative dancer, who only dances=A0in his or her home studio=A0is written about=A0as an innovator?
=A0
Are there different standards when it comes to=A0puppetry?=A0 Or are we puppeteers all the smarter for not making such distinctions?
=A0
Robert Rogers=A0

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


--0015175cb50c8e9305046e6f6357--
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005