Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:36:55 -0400
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: [Puptcrit] What is a Puppeteer?


thread was:  Nightingale in Toronto: Lepage and Curry
On Oct 4, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Preston Foerder wrote:

> I think the problem here is the attitude that anyone can pick up a 
> puppet and be a puppeteer with little or no training.  Conrad 
> expressed nicely the difficulties that actors have in converting their 
> art to puppetry.  No one doubts that actors, singers, dancers, mimes, 
> etc. all need to be trained in their professions. But somehow it is 
> assumed that because they are trained in their own fields, any one of 
> them can pick up a puppet and be a great puppeteer without training in 
> our field. Or they'll just pick up what they need to know in 
> rehearsals. Somehow because everyone has puppets when they're kids, 
> the assumption is we all have the prerequisites to be a puppeteer. I 
> have a degree in theater. Took acting, mime, dance, voice, and even 
> singing classes (though out of good will, I spare the world my singing 
> voice, and for that matter my dancing, unless I've had a few drinks). 
> But to be a puppeteer, it's also necessary to get extensive training 
> in puppetry whether in classes, workshops, or from other 
> professionals.  Why should that seem so odd? I'm also a big fan of 
> crude puppetry, but like Picasso, who said it took him his whole life 
> to learn to paint like a child, it is necessary to learn the skills 
> before you can throw them away.
>
> Preston

Ah, Preston, this is indeed a two edged sword.

   As I've said before, I believe that Puppetry is a Hobby Profession. 
By its simplest definition, anyone CAN pick up a puppet and be a 
puppeteer with little or no training. Not necessarily a good puppeteer, 
but a puppeteer none the less. The biggest problem, for me, comes when 
that 'anyone' who is now a puppeteer thinks that they have no 
obligation to be trained in the performing aspects beyond manipulation. 
The false assumption that, as a puppeteer I only need to learn to 
manipulate objects well, I don't need the other prerequisites of 
performance. The classes, workshops or training from other 
professionals need (IMO) to include many of the things you mentioned: 
singing, dancing, mime, voice, etc. and not just more manipulation or 
more building.

  I come first from the acting etc schools, then to puppetry. I am very 
lucky (blessed?) that puppetry came easily to me, probably because of a 
varied performance background (combined with the blessing that I'm too 
stupid to know how hard it really is, even today). So, for many years I 
thought "Shoot, I can do this, so anybody can do this." Yep, that 
anybody can pick up a puppet and do it, especially if they've had 
training and/or a lot of experience in other performance arts.  I never 
knew how lucky I was until I tried to teach some actors and jugglers, 
who were not cross trained or experienced, to work some puppets. It was 
not pretty, nor was it easy. It was a real wake up call for me. I now 
know that not every actor (or whatever) can be a good puppeteer, nor 
can every puppeteer be a good singer, dancer, actor, etc.. Cuts both 
ways. But that is no excuse for not getting the training so we can 
become better at those things, nor a reason to think that a singer, 
dancer, actor, etc. can not become a decent or even a good puppeteer. 
For me, I would rather be really good at a lot of things (and passible 
at a few things that I'm likely to never be really good at) than great 
at only one or two. I'm okay at not being "The Best" at anything, and 
just being damn good at a lot of things. I choose versatility over 
virtuosity.

   So, what IS a puppeteer? In workshops to puppeteers that I give, I 
sometimes bring this up. Who's definition do we use, and by what 
standard do we measure? Is it enough to extend Baird's definition and 
say "Someone who moves an object, before an audience, in order to 
convey a thought, emotion, and/or story."? Would not then the humans 
hired by Curry, Taymor and others be puppeteers? Because the puppets 
are deliberately limited in their range and the manipulators do not 
come from a puppetry background (as if we knew in every case) does this 
make them less a puppet or the manipulators less a puppeteer? In many 
of his shows David Simpich's puppets barely move. They are exquisite 
and his story and voicing exemplary. If movement is the main standard, 
he is a lousy puppeteer, yet he is outstanding and recognized as such 
by many people in and out of puppetry. (I wish I could be even half as 
lousy!) Joe Cashore has very little or no dialogue in his shows, but 
his puppets and the story they tell are expressive and his manipulation 
unworldly. Yet by dramatic dialogue standards of puppetry, Joe would be 
a lousy puppeteer. (Again, I'd love to be even as lousy as Joe.) In 
most of the shows I have seen by The Puppetmongers, the puppets are 
elementary with minimal movement. Yet they create true theater. Are 
they lousy puppeteers? (Oh, to be as lousy as they are!) These are only 
a few examples. My point is, I can find no single standard or 
definition of either puppets or puppeteers. Yet in most of the 
exemplary examples I can think of, the puppeteers bring much more than 
the object or its manipulation to the stage. The education, training, 
and experience they bring to bare is way beyond how to make or move a 
puppet in a more effective manner, but those things are not neglected 
either. In talking with each of these artist, as well as others, there 
is a synthesis of elements and a deliberate choice of puppet style, 
design, and movement.

Christopher

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