File puptcrit/puptcrit.1002, message 399


From: "Naomi Guss" <na-AT-puppetsinmelbourne.com.au>
To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:00:02 +1100
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] puptcrit Digest, Vol 64,


Rats... I forgot to add in my last reply:

"Over the years our organizations have created current histories of the
field.  Without acception, every last one has offended my sensibilities by
inclusions and exclusions.  For some I could only consider that inclusion
was based on friendship or predilection to a style or genre.  I think that
kind of excercise has little value.  It really offends me.  It is arrogant.
When a president leaves office informed commentators always say something
like "only history will decide how 'good' a president they were"  It takes
time and perspective to see with clarity what their impact really was.  I
believe that over time perspective does improve.

Perhaps using the term "fine art" wasn't the best choice of words, but to be
in an encyclopedic archive one assumes fine artistry in the choice of
inclusion. Right?"

No. An archive is just that: a collection of information. As in my last
reply, any resource (even the dictionary) grows and changes over time to
reflect different things. You can discuss whatever you like with an online
resource. For example, I have a habit of checking my web stats for terms
people use in Google searches (whereby they find my website). I often find
really interesting phrases or questions that people use to find out about
puppetry. Many times these will be terms or questions that I haven't thought
about before, or that are obvious to the puppeteer but obscure to others, or
simply a repetition of a subject that is popular but I haven't written about
yet. In this way, the archive can be about a wide range of things, from
telling people to stop buying replicas, to discussions on the difficulty of
offering complicated patterns for puppets online, to informative articles on
well-known characters/performers. 

Often the content is not dictated by what I'm interested in writing about
(although obviously it's hard to be motivated to write about something
you're not interested in - which is where it gets easier if you have more
than one person submitting content), but rather by what other people are
looking for. 

It really is a matter of remembering that online archives grow over time:
I've got about 100 or more articles amassed over a few years. In another
year, I might have 20 more, or 50. Good content takes time to research, to
write, and then to add or edit. There's nothing to say that a fully complete
and indexed set of articles must be published immediately - unless of
course, you're publishing a book. But online, you are allowed to start small
and amass content over a period of time. One to five articles that are
well-written and interesting don't have to worry about filling up space,
because the space is infinite.

... Anyway, enough ramblings for now! :)

------- 

Naomi Guss

www.puppetsinmelbourne.com.au

Puppets in Melbourne 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hobey Ford [mailto:hobeyone-AT-gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2010 2:56 AM
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] puptcrit Digest, Vol 64, Issue 25 democracy

Over the years our organizations have created current histories of the
field.  Without acception, every last one has offended my sensibilities by
inclusions and exclusions.  For some I could only consider that inclusion
was based on friendship or predilection to a style or genre.  I think that
kind of excercise has little value.  It really offends me.  It is arrogant.
When a president leaves office informed commentators always say something
like "only history will decide how 'good' a president they were"  It takes
time and perspective to see with clarity what their impact really was.  I
believe that over time perspective does improve.

Perhaps using the term "fine art" wasn't the best choice of words, but to be
in an encyclopedic archive one assumes fine artistry in the choice of
inclusion. Right?

Spreading the net wider we can let the viewer decide what they like or not
instead making the choice for them.

Thanks for the compliment, I am impressed with your artistry as well Ed.

http://www.firlefanzgallery.com/


On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Ed Atkeson <edatkeson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Hobey,
> First, there are few people whose work is as inspiring as yours, so I 
> feel priviledged 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.  
> > I
> 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.  Opinions are subjective.  
> > If
> I
> > make a history of puppeteers in Albany and I have a bias for adult 
> > intellectual theater you will be included.  Let's say it is 1965 and 
> > I
> have
> > a narrower view of what is puppetry, I am perhaps going to overlook you.
>  If
> > I write a history of puppets at that time and your career is 
> > ignored,
> then
> > thats just tough.  Was your work not worthy?  You essentially don't 
> > exist down the road when people study the puppetry of Albany.  How 
> > are you with this?  Feeling good about it?
> >
> > I have been fortunate in my career to have recognition.  I'm not
> concerned
> > about my own legacy.  I do care about puppet artists and want the 
> > net
> cast
> > wide.  When 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.  In 1920 Bourguereau was a 
> > joke.  Opinions and
> biases
> > demoted him in historical perspective.  Now he is fairing better 
> > because
> of
> > the perspective of time.  Were 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.  But 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.  
> >> > That
> is
> >> why
> >> > rubrics are almost impossible in accessment of arts.  They are 
> >> > just opinions.  They are what an individual likes.  I agree that 
> >> > you
> wouldn't
> >> > want a free for all with research for an archive concerning 
> >> > objective information.  There are people like yourself who have 
> >> > made a life's
> work
> >> out
> >> > of researching one thing and you are good at it.  But 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.  We
> >> are
> >> > talking about art, not science.  It 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.  We see it
> >> everyday
> >> > in our politics, "national viewpoints"  and at its worse in cults.
>  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.  I took several theater graduates to what I 
> >> > thought
> would
> >> > really impress them in what is considered  the 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.  The audience of
> mostly
> >> > puppeteers, gave the show a standing ovation.  The Emporer's New
> clothes
> >> > comes to mind.  Remember the P of A chapter of "Master Puppeteer"
> >> > designation?  I am not suggesting that this book is not a 
> >> > valuable
> well
> >> > researched archive.  I plan to buy it and am greatful that people 
> >> > like yourself made the effort.  But forming rosters of worthy 
> >> > contemporary
> art
> >> > and artists is just opinion.  I love *Adolphe* *Bouguereau*<
> >>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mxj&rls=org.moz
> illa:en-US:official&ei=hM-GS7-uKs2Vtge597GnDw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&c
> t=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.  
> >> > He
> >> deplored
> >> > their work and held the movement back through the Salon system in
> Paris
> >> > which essentially chose what was worthy to be shown.   They did it
> back
> >> to
> >> > him in return.  In both cases a bias and collective opinion were 
> >> > at
> work.
> >> > So, respectfully, to those who choose what is the "state of the 
> >> > art",
> >>  they
> >> > 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
>  everyone's
> >> >> opinion  is as good as everyone else's. I shudder to think  that
> anyone
> >> can
> >> >> make
> >> >> corrections to information. Research should be based  on 
> >> >> 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
>


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005