From: "Alan Cook" <alangregorycook-AT-msn.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:25:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] What is a Puppeteer?


To Bil Baird's definition of "puppeteer", I'd add that being a puppeteer requires a certain state of mind, too. You have to think like a puppeteer.

A painting instructor in my college said "Art is the embodiment of an idea."

So is a puppet the embodiment of an idea. The puppet (or the play, opera, sculpture, music or painting, etc.) is a means of communicating an idea to others. If it s communicated well, then it is ART.

Good puppet construction, good manipulation, good acting with the puppet or through the puppet increases the communication.

Poor manipulation destroys the illusion of life. 

But some puppeteers have stronger innate gifts than others, and do not require classes in puppet construction or manipulation to succeed---for them it is innate or intuitive. The rest of us can learn from them.

I marvel at academia---how your degree makes you learned, yet the artists they study did not usually have a degree, and everything the professional teacher knows was ultimately learnt from an artist without a degree.

I don't recall Picasso having a PhD.

Van Gogh did not have a B.A.

Neither did Mourget have a degree in puppetry when he created Guignol. Nor did the commedia street performers who developed Pulcinella.

Formal schooling can be great, but it also needs a bit of humility.

Some self-taught geniuses need more credit.

Roger Hayward and W. A Dwiggins, both with origins in Massachusetts in the late 1920s/early 1930s, developed marionettes on their own. The two worked very similarly, on a similarly small scale, but I don't think they ever met. But they were similarly gifted with inventive minds, they both were natural born engineers in terms of marionette construction. They wanted to make unique (as in "one of a kind") creations---tall, thin, fat, short characters---not all out of the same mold. And then they just figured but how to accomplish that. Others may need to take a class or apprentice themselves to get started, and then hopefully will find their own approach or improve the existing one (as seen in folk traditions).

Necessity is the Mother of Invention---one of the appeals of puppetry to many, is that it needs solutions to problems---and all those "how can I ?" questions on puptcrit just confirms this.

Even determining WHAT is needed can be a challenge.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Hudert
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 11:36 AM
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



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