To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:39:57 -0500
From: puppetpro-AT-aol.com
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Context


I so much enjoy the word "inclusiveness" rather than "tolerance". 

Christopher wrote: 


Push the boundaries by including related things, and 
seek to find ways that things are related. Don't ignore that they are 
different and how (in fact, celebrate that), but do find the things 
that are shared. Funny thing is, this works not just in theater/art, 
but in life itself. If we spent less time finding fault with 
differences and more time celebrating those differences as well as the 
similarities we'd all be better off in countless ways.


Rolande




-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Hudert <heyhoot-AT-mindspring.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2010 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Context


On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:20 AM, puppetpro-AT-aol.com wrote:

> For me, the argument centers on context. If we are members of 
> performer's unions, and our business is dependent upon what we call 
> ourselves, of course we need a term that gets us work at fair prices.
   There is a difference between inclusive and exclusive, and that (to 
me) is part of the key. When it come to fitting into part of a set in 
order to get proper compensation, it is important. Of course this will 
also be abused, as lots of people will seek to max out what they get 
paid no matter how thin the application to the higher level. And most 
employers will seek to minimize what they pay out in order to keep cost 
down and maximize profit. The key is to settle on something fair in the 
middle, but that ugly greed thing likes to rear its head.
   Of course pride can weedle its way in as well. If we don't feel we 
are getting proper respect for what we do, we may demand better 
compensation in order to feel we are getting our due recognition. 
Otherwise, we may feel we are being exploited - in the negative sense 
of the word. (see related earlier posts regarding the museum shows)
   Finding that point of just compensation and recognition for a 
specialty skill is a tricky business. But it is part of the business of 
show business.

> If we are educators, we need to also define our terms precisely and 
> responsibly, with a thought to and for whom we are teaching. A class 
> of five year olds have different perspectives than a class of college 
> students, or the general public.
> As an entertainer, I need to be faithful to my audience, which may 
> include all of the above or none. It's intrinsic to the nature of the 
> art that audience members bring their own opinions and personal 
> histories to a show.
> I recently did a performance which included objects and marionettes. 
> Nevertheless, at the end of the show, one little boy commented, "I 
> thought this was going to be a puppet show"!  My performance did not 
> fit into his definition. And, since he was expecting a "puppet show" 
> and did not receive one, he was disappointed, even though his 
> compatriots had a great time.
> Could I have argued with him to change his mind? Cited books, 
> references, photos, films? Probably not.

Part of the "problem" is that as we seek to define ourselves so that 
others understand who we are and what we do, not all will have the same 
understanding of the words or things within the definition.

  I have performed in full clown makeup and costume and had a child say 
"you're not a real clown." I've found that it seems to be a combination 
of "you don't fit my preconceived notions of what a clown is or does" 
and the struggle at certain ages to define what is real and what is 
fantasy. On the other end of the spectrum I've had children and adults 
tell me I am an amazing clown, mostly because I didn't fit their 
preconceived notions of what a clown is or does (especially when they 
are not scared of me when they normally are scared of clowns.) With 
puppets, I have had children exclaim at the end of a show that they 
didn't see any puppets, even when I operated puppets throughout the 
show, in full view of the audience. I actually take this as a 
compliment. Of course it's not just kids. Case in point: I recently had 
a well respected puppeteer tell me that when the toy object puppet 
transforms into a live rabbit in my production of "Velveteen Rabbit," 
he SEES a real rabbit. He said he knows it is a puppet, yet even after 
the show, the image remains that it was a live rabbit on stage. If they 
believe in the characters in the show so much that they don't see the 
puppets as puppets, I think I just may be accomplishing my 
entertainment goals.

   I am a variety entertainer. Mostly what I do is theater. I may use 
some combination of puppetry, storytelling, magic, clowning, acting, 
song, dance, movement, mask, stilt walking, and more in my 
performances. For "puppet shows" I rarely am in a traditional puppet 
booth, and even more rarely wear "puppet blacks." I've slowly learned 
that generally it is just not that important that people have one label 
to stick on me, mostly because I have no control over that and I don't 
do just one thing. If they want to call me one thing, they will. Many 
times they will say/think I am X and more. Either way, it's okay. What 
IS important is that I am successful in entertaining the audience (and 
hopefully that they remember who I am so they can book me or seek me 
out to see.)

   In terms of puppetry and what is or is not, and what is or is not a 
puppet, many things can be, and many thing may share elements (at 
times). Is an elephant a dancer? No, but I've seen an elephant dance. 
Is a brick a puppet? No, not in the conventional sense, but I've seen 
some successfully used in puppetry and become, for a while, puppets. Is 
"Avatar" puppetry? You decide, for you. For me, I think that, while it 
shares many aspects of puppetry, strictly speaking I don't think I'd 
call it puppetry. For me, puppetry involves a more direct use of some 
sort of object, not just image, in the performance. But just because it 
is "object made to move before an audience" does not mean it is puppet 
or puppetry. Fred Astaire dancing with a mop, broom, or chair is dance 
with a prop, even when the prop is treated as a dance partner. He may 
even relate and react to the prop as a person, but it is still a prop. 
The line does begin to blur though when the prop is given some sort of 
life of its own. At what point does the prop come into focus as a 
puppet? Depends. That blurry line may be narrow or wide. It may or may 
not ever be crossed. Depends on the performance and on the perception 
and definition of each individual in the audience.

> Christopher wrote,
> "Seeing how things fit into a set or subset of others, as well as how 
> they become a set or subset themslves, and how they are both separate 
> and interrelated, gives way to a greater understanding and knowledge 
> of both their independence and interdependence as a form".
>
> How can we continue to work toward expanding understanding?

How can we continue to work toward expanding understanding? In a word, 
inclusiveness. Push the boundaries by including related things, and 
seek to find ways that things are related. Don't ignore that they are 
different and how (in fact, celebrate that), but do find the things 
that are shared. Funny thing is, this works not just in theater/art, 
but in life itself. If we spent less time finding fault with 
differences and more time celebrating those differences as well as the 
similarities we'd all be better off in countless ways.  But that's just 
my opinion.

BTW, I am not advocating everything being thrown together in one big 
pot and being cooked down to an indistinguishable mush. In a good stew 
you can see how things work together, but still can tell the difference 
between the meat, the potatoes, the carrots, and so on. And there is no 
need to always make stew. You can make a great steak, or burger, or 
whatever. If you're not getting the analogy, in the terms of puppetry, 
you don't always have to include everything. You can make a great hand, 
or rod, or marionette, or stop motion, or whatever, show. But also know 
that it is possible to combine things and to create new things without 
losing the identity of the ingredients.

Sorry if that was a long rambling response. I just found too many 
things in your reply. I think I'm done now. You probably hope so.

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