From: Christopher Hudert <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:44:56 -0500
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Is "Avatar" a puppet show?


Interesting discussion. Sort of.

Seems we bat around the same battered ball, at times, and wonder why 
the game doesn't change. For some, maybe it doesn't have to change, for 
others it does need to change. Baird's classic, conventional, catch-all 
definition of a puppet (An inanimate object made to move before an 
audience) is exactly that - classic, conventional, and catch-all. It 
obviously leaves out some essential parts while opening the door to 
debate, and seemingly opening a window for new future things. 
Subversive on his part? Perhaps.

  In some of the examples given here recently, adhering strictly to the 
Baird definition that rock being made to roll down the hill is a puppet 
if there is anyone watching. And a race car driven around the track has 
an audience and is an inanimate object made to move, thus a puppet. But 
those two things, and many others, leave out many of the elements of 
puppetry - especially (but not exclusively) the intent to entertain. 
So, I don't think Baird intended his definition to be the end all of 
debate of what a puppet may be, but only meant to define in a general 
sense what a puppet is, conventionally. It is a broad brush he painted 
with, and deliberately so, I think.

So, is stop motion, mo-cap, WALDO, etc. puppetry? I think the answer is 
definitely yes AND no.  Perhaps in their early stages they were the 
brides of puppetry, married into the family. The offspring definitely 
have traits of being a puppet, and traits of not being a puppet. 
Whether they are puppets or it is puppetry will depend on an 
individual's perspective and how many traits are shared - which side of 
the family tree the branch seems to be on, so to speak.

  Who and what are puppeteers? Are the puppeteers, dancers, mimes, 
clowns, and actors who do the movement studies for animation 
puppeteers? They do move and manipulate images - though mostly 
indirectly. Or is it only the animators? Or both, or neither? Are the 
vets and so on who use bird puppets to feed young wild birds 
puppeteers? Are therapists who utilize puppets within their therapy 
puppeteers, or are they merely using a tool? They do have and use a 
puppet. What about the child who plays with puppet, even going so far 
as to do a simple scenario for their parents, siblings or friends? Does 
simply being the one who moves the inanimate object make one a 
puppeteer? Or is there more than that to being a puppeteer? Where is 
the line drawn in the sand?

  And what is a puppetry artist or master? There are those who are 
considered one or both. Those artists and masters have attained an 
elevated level in the field, for the most part, because of their 
devotion to one particular area, marionettes or hand puppets for 
instance. I don't count myself among them, at least not in the 
conventional sense. I have chosen to be a generalist, to work in 
several areas of puppetry and other forms of entertainment as well. 
That pretty much means I will never master any one thing, but I have 
done a more than passable job of blending several things into a pretty 
decent show (or so I am told.) Will I ever be considered a master or an 
artist? And if so, by who? My peers? My audiences? The critics? (Ha ha 
ha, right, like critics are going to show up for a "kid's show!" Oh 
boy, let me stop and wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes... Sorry, 
where were we?) While I admit it would be nice, it is not what drives 
me. What drives those who have achieved, or seek to achieve, the level 
of artist or master? Is it the desire to reach said level, or is 
reaching a level the byproduct of some other desire, or is it simply 
what we label those who's work we look up to? Is one person's master 
another person's hack, and vice versa?

  Does the role of puppet and puppeteer imply, maybe even require, some 
sort of intent to entertain in some way? Does that entertainment have 
to have some sort of story to it?

   I don't know all of the answers, and I am not even sure of all of the 
questions, but I do think that the ironic paradoxical aphorism is true: 
there are absolutely no absolutes. We can discuss and debate until the 
next child, step child, or adopted child comes into the puppetry 
family, then begin the debate again, and we still won't reach any total 
definition or agreement. In the end, it seems to come down to a label 
that we can apply that gives a general mutual understanding of what 
something or someone is. As always, some will agree and some will 
disagree, but that's okay with me. The discussion makes us think and 
rethink. But I confess, sometimes it makes my brain tired. Like now. So 
I'm done.

Christopher

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