Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:48:31 -0500
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
From: Susan Wall Kronenberg <susan-AT-carouselpuppets.com>
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Is "Avatar" a puppet show?


There is no puppetry in Avatar.  The actors were wearing digital 
costumes.  Does that make them puppeteers?  No.


At 11:17 AM 1/8/2010, you wrote:
>Why it makes sense to expand our definitions of puppetry:
>   - avoid parochialism
>   - keep up with the innovations in object performance such as 
> motion capture and special effects
>   - be able to understand in connect to the global history of 
> puppetry, which touches all continents and societies.
>
>Whether or not the term "puppet" is used for all these forms of 
>performance, it is important to keep in mind that they are all 
>related, all share the same dynamics of human/object relationships 
>and human manipulation of the material world.
>
>A problem contemporary culture faces is a lack of a sense of 
>history; the history of projected images on a screen is generally 
>thought to begin in the late 1800s, when in fact it goes back to the 
>origins of shadow theater many centuries earlier.  Mass culture is 
>unable to distinguish between the digital images presented to us in 
>"Avatar" and the performers who make those digital objects 
>(projected images in the movie theater) move.
>
>Take a look at the caption for an image from the movie in a New York 
>Times review 
>(http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/movies/18avatar.html?ref=movies). 
>We are looking at a digital construction, but the caption says "Zoe 
>Saldana plays the warrior Neytiri in 'Avatar.'"  A sense of the 
>dynamics of puppetry would help this situation, and help audiences 
>and critics understand that they are in fact NOT looking at the 
>actress Zoe Saldana at all, but at a digital performing object which 
>was created by a number of different people (including but not 
>limited to Saldana).  A sense of the dynamics of puppetry would help 
>people understand what is truly happening in our culture, rather 
>than mislead.  It's important that language and popular 
>understanding keep pace with what is actually happening in the world around us.
>
>
>
>Dr. John T. Bell
>Director
>Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry
>University of Connecticut
>6 Bourn Place Unit 5212
>Storrs, Connecticut  06269-5212
>office: 860 486 0806
>cell: 617 599 3250
>www.bimp.uconn.edu
>
>To make a contribution to the Ballard Institute and Museum of 
>Puppetry, please go to
>https://secure.ga4.org/01/uconn_foundation_giving, and select 
>"Ballard Puppetry Museum" from the "Purpose" list.  Thanks for your support!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: puptcrit-bounces-AT-puptcrit.org 
>[mailto:puptcrit-bounces-AT-puptcrit.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Hudert
>Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 10:45 AM
>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
>_______________________________________________
>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