From: Angusson-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:27:49 EDT
Subject: PUPT: Critical Discussions



In a message dated 4/4/1999 10:58:41 PM, Bob Nathanson wrote:

>I decided to pose that question to the one I always turn to when I need an 
>answer, my rabbi.  I called him up this evening, and asked, "Why a puppet?"
>   He hung up on me!      Bob N.

Dear Bob,

Let me  presume upon this conversation and suggest that your Rabbi was having 
a bad evening.  I'd like to think that under other circumstances, he would 
have thrown up his arms and asked "Why NOT a puppet?" 

Enjoying all of this. 

In a selfish vein, I would enjoy more follow-up on Douglas O'Connell's  
suggestion that we talk "...more critically about approaches to [our puppet] 
work."  He prefers  "... more puppet based theater to approach work as 
physical and visual theater and less reliant on text."  Many of us are 
already practicing such an approach, if I understand the comment. 
My early background was in dance and the (physical) vocabulary associated 
with it. And so much of my thinking about developing my puppet performance 
has to do with gesture and refining it and (as Ronnie Burkette puts it) 
"exploring the silences." The USE of lack of movement to make a point.  

I do a lot of writing as a tool toward my own understanding about this art 
form called puppetry, and am JUST beginning to catch a glimmer of what it 
might be about. So any discussions within this group would certainly benefit 
my understanding. I'd really enjoy hearing about the thought process others 
employ to develop an idea. 

To this end, I'd like to pose another question. To what extent does your 
thinking take into account the fact that you will be performing for an 
audience? Or to put it another way, to what extent do you want the audience 
to "get" what your presenting?

While this may seem like strange proposition, considering that we engaged in 
an art form meant to communicate ideas, there are some performers who, in the 
practice of this art, seem to disregard the audience as a participating 
member. Their "vocabulary" (whatever form it takes) is, to some, (me) 
inaccessible.

This statement is not meant to be critical, really.  The more I know, the 
better puppeteer I can be. If understanding comes, then I can better 
"educate" our (my) audiences, as someone else here recently suggested we need 
to do.  

Thanks,

Fred Thomspon








  --- Personal replies to: Angusson-AT-aol.com
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu