From: "Naomi Guss" <na-AT-puppetsinmelbourne.com.au>
To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:49:20 +1100
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] puptcrit Digest, Vol 64,


 
"An online database would not have the problem of limited space. And if it
did exclude, it would be obvious to everyone that there were exclusions, and
that that is the kind of database it is, and that it may not be the most
useful resource. So there would be a democratic pressure for it to be
all-inclusive."

Another thing about online databases: they can grow and change over time. A
book or encyclopedia is reduced to remaining the same; and then future
publications update information. An online resource evolves and can be
updated with new information quicker and easier, meaning outdated
information or more 'exclusive' information can be broadened as required,
rather than on a set publication date every few years.

Any editorial board will be biased. Any writer will be biased. But I think
avoiding creating any resource because of bias is by definition exclusive,
not inclusive. By keeping all the information to ourselves, and deciding for
other people what is relevant and what is not purely by not publishing, it
is a disservice to all those in the public who really do want to learn.
You'd be surprised how many people out there would want to learn, not just
about the late and greats, but also about those small groups and individuals
in their home towns. An online publication has the benefit of not having to
include only information that sells: the popular stuff allows people to feed
in to areas that either would never have excited them before or thought
about before (and therefore spark a greater love for puppetry), or areas
that are never discussed in books because nobody has the time/info/whatever.
(As an example, many of the most popular questions on my site get viewed
hundreds of times a day. But lesser known questions about puppetry are also
popular, because I make a point of offering unique content. I write about
stuff that nobody else does, which means that even the more niche areas of
puppetry get discussed. This wouldn't happen in book format, where space is
at a premium)

Fine art also has nothing to do with it. Any online resource can be easily
created without making judgements on what is good art, bad art, good
puppetry, bad puppeteers, etc. If people wanted to discuss that, there's
nothing wrong with a section of blogs or 'editorials'. 

Speaking as someone who's constantly looking for interesting puppetry
resources on the net: I'd love to see more information on bunraku, from how
to's to explanatory descriptions and diagrams. I'd like to know more about
how 'bunraku' has become another term for table-top puppetry; I'd like to
read more history pertinent to my country and not so much about Henson and
the Muppets. The fact is, that whatever is currently on the net is already
biased, simply because the people writing about puppetry are writing about
what interests them on blogs - a wikipedia of sorts would or should
endeavour to widen the content, not repeat it. 

I will lastly add this: sites like Ehow and Youtube are now being flooded by
for-hire writers who know nothing about puppetry. They often scan the net,
harvest tidbits of information from good quality resources (ie. plagiarising
or at least coming very close to it), and then post half-assed articles on a
particular subject. It doesn't have to be good writing: these sites are only
interested in viewer numbers and ad-click revenues. So what we're saying is,
as an industry, we're happy for these sites to instead represent us, what
puppetry is, what it's history is, and so forth? We're happy that instead,
biased writers, biased editorial boards, and people who have no clue about
puppetry can misrepresent it as much as they like? I've read a lot of these
articles, and they are quite often the worst representations of puppetry
information on the net. 

I for one, would rather a team of well-instructed, puppetry-educated people
were writing content that is informative, entertaining, easily presented,
up-to-date, covering a wide range of topics. And personally, I enjoy reading
about what makes good puppetry, whether it is fine art, and what biases
people do have when writing. It makes the content far more personable, far
deeper and intellectual, and shows that puppetry really isn't a one-trick
pony. 

Speaking from a biased point of view of course ;)


------- 

Naomi Guss

www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au

Puppets in Melbourne 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Atkeson [mailto:edatkeson-AT-gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2010 2:30 AM
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] puptcrit Digest, Vol 64, Issue 25 democracy

Hi Hobey,
First, there are few people whose work is as inspiring as yours, so I feel
privileged to even be having this conversation.

You're saying that any records or archives of puppet theater are subjective,
because someone decides who to include. I think that's true. And if we were
talking about a book, that comes into play very strongly because there isn't
much room in a book. Decisions have to be made by the editors and a lot of
companies will not make the cut, or may only be listed, not featured.

An online database would not have the problem of limited space. And if it
did exclude, it would be obvious to everyone that there were exclusions, and
that that is the kind of database it is, and that it may not be the most
useful resource. So there would be a democratic pressure for it to be
all-inclusive.

The other thing that occurs to me is that I really doubt that
inclusions-exclusions in a puppetry wiki would be made on the basis of fine
art. They would probably be made on the basis of popularity, and people like
me might still lose out, but popularity is a much more understandable, less
subjective way of deciding.

Fine art is (was?) such an arbitrary wild card, I just thought you were
going off the tracks a bit bringing it up.

Back to the democracy question, and Nancy's quote, I would want people like
you and Alan moderating the puppet wiki, not just anyone.
just one opinion!
Ed

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Hobey Ford <hobeyone-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> In this discussion we are talking about two things which continue to 
> be combined as if they are one: information and quality.
> information is objective
> quality is subjective.
> When making subjective evaluations we wander off the path of facts. =A0I 
> don't suggest that editors look at a roster of subjects and decide: good
or bad.
> But in the end they have to go on opinion. =A0Opinions are subjective. =A0
> If I make a history of puppeteers in Albany and I have a bias for 
> adult intellectual theater you will be included. =A0Let's say it is 1965 
> and I have a narrower view of what is puppetry, I am perhaps going to 
> overlook you. =A0If I write a history of puppets at that time and your 
> career is ignored, then thats just tough. =A0Was your work not worthy? =A0
> You essentially don't exist down the road when people study the 
> puppetry of Albany. =A0How are you with this? =A0Feeling good about it?
>
> I have been fortunate in my career to have recognition. =A0I'm not 
> concerned about my own legacy. =A0I do care about puppet artists and 
> want the net cast wide. =A0When decisions of inclusion are made in the 
> history of our artform, many will be forgetten down the road because of
someone's opinion and bias.
> Were these scholars smart and informed, yes, do they have preferences 
> and biases? Who doesn't. =A0In 1920 Bourguereau was a joke. =A0Opinions 
> and biases demoted him in historical perspective. =A0Now he is fairing 
> better because of the perspective of time. =A0Were those who demoted him 
> in the 20's dumb, no they were intelligent people, but people with bias
and preferences.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Ed Atkeson <edatkeson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that Nancy's quote is pretty clarifying. It gives me a good 
>> feeling.
>>
>> Hobey, don't you step off the cliff a bit when you all of a sudden 
>> start talking in terms of deciding what "what is or isn't fine art"?
>> You can talk about puppetry all day long without ever bringing that 
>> up. An enormous database of information about puppetry could be 
>> compiled without even talking about what's "good" or "bad," or -- in 
>> the case of Bourguereau -- fashionable.
>>
>> Just my opinion, butting in.
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Hobey Ford <hobeyone-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would agree with you Nancy in terms of dates, facts and possibly 
>> > reputations. =A0But when we talk about what is or isn't fine art and 
>> > make lists of what is worthy of inclusion or not, it is subjective. =A0
>> > That is
>> why
>> > rubrics are almost impossible in accessment of arts. =A0They are just 
>> > opinions. =A0They are what an individual likes. =A0I agree that you 
>> > wouldn't want a free for all with research for an archive 
>> > concerning objective information. =A0There are people like yourself 
>> > who have made a life's work
>> out
>> > of researching one thing and you are good at it. =A0But I have to 
>> > disagree with the architect who to me comes across as a snob, who 
>> > doesn't think
>> "the
>> > public" knows anything and could possibly have a valuable opinion. =A0
>> > We
>> are
>> > talking about art, not science. =A0It is a subjective topic where 
>> > everyone does have a valid opinion because in the end thats all 
>> > anyone's opinion is...an opinion.
>> >
>> > Jungian Psychologist, John Sanford wrote about groups of people 
>> > forming associative ego's, people of a community who in their 
>> > alliance form group "egos" which support their own opinions and 
>> > viewpoint. =A0We see it
>> everyday
>> > in our politics, "national viewpoints" =A0and at its worse in cults. =A0 =A0
>> > I
>> have
>> > my own likes and dislikes and some work that others find 
>> > fascinating and provocative, I find a pretentious self indulgent 
>> > mess having little to do with puppetry. =A0I took several theater 
>> > graduates to what I thought would really impress them in what is 
>> > considered =A0the pinnacle of puppetry and after the show eagerly 
>> > awaited their opinions and they critiqued the show
>> to
>> > pieces and in the end I had to agree with them. =A0The audience of 
>> > mostly puppeteers, gave the show a standing ovation. =A0The Emporer's 
>> > New clothes comes to mind. =A0Remember the P of A chapter of "Master
Puppeteer"
>> > designation? =A0I am not suggesting that this book is not a valuable 
>> > well researched archive. =A0I plan to buy it and am greatful that 
>> > people like yourself made the effort. =A0But forming rosters of 
>> > worthy contemporary art and artists is just opinion. =A0I love 
>> > *Adolphe* *Bouguereau*<
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mxj&rls=org.mo
>> zilla:en-US:official&ei=hM-GS7-uKs2Vtge597GnDw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0
>> &ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=Adolphe+Bouguereau+painter&spell=1
>> >'s
>> > paintings and today his work is being exhibited again after being 
>> >hidden
>> in
>> > the basements of museums following the Impressionist movement. =A0He
>> deplored
>> > their work and held the movement back through the Salon system in 
>> > Paris which essentially chose what was worthy to be shown. =A0 They 
>> > did it back
>> to
>> > him in return. =A0In both cases a bias and collective opinion were at
work.
>> > So, respectfully, to those who choose what is the "state of the 
>> > art",
>> =A0they
>> > are not dealing with facts, they are dealing with subjective 
>> > opinions
>> that
>> > in the end aren't better than anyone elses.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:04 PM, <NANCYSTAUB-AT-aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A famous architect once observed that people in America confuse 
>> >> the idea that everyone has a right to an opinion with the idea 
>> >> that =A0everyone's opinion =A0is as good as everyone else's. I shudder 
>> >> to think =A0that anyone
>> can
>> >> make
>> >> corrections to information. Research should be based =A0on multiple
>> sources
>> >> and
>> >> investigation of the validity of the sources.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ****************************************
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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