File spoon-archives/puptcrit.archive/puptcrit_1999/puptcrit.9908, message 414


Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 03:14:05 -0400
From: Preston Foerder <slovpete-AT-telesouth1.com>
Subject: Re: PUPT: Mime Article



--------------B1729D00F346783980342000


"David A. Syrotiak" wrote:

>
> The advantage we, as puppeteers, have in relation to the critics is
> that what we
> do is different for them.  Critics, needless to say, see many plays.
> What
> attracts them is something that stands out of the ordinary.  Bring a
> puppet on
> stage, and suddenly they are seeing something new.  This makes that
> particular
> piece of theater stand out.  The trick is getting them to see beyond
> this and
> getting them to critique the theatrical qualities of the piece.  For
> this, the
> critic needs a vocabulary of previous experiences, in order to
> compare.  Yes,
> they can read Craig and Kleist, as well as modern puppet theory and
> criticism,
> and some of the more literate critics probably have.  But this does
> not compare
> to actual experiences in the theater.
> So the answer to the above question, would be "See as much puppet
> theatre as
> possible."
> Over time they will develop their own tastes and vocabulary, and be
> able to
> judge the piece in relation to theatre, and puppet theatre.
>
>
>
>
> In reference to the above: this has been a point bantered about for
> years and sometimes used as an excuse by puppeteers as to why they
> have not attracted the general public.  To my way of thinking,  what
> you do is either good theatre or not good theatre and should stand on
> it's own merit.  I don't really think the critics/general public
> really cares whether the medium used was puppets, meat actors,
> dancers, mimes, what-have-you as long as what they have seen was good
> theatre - PERIOD.

This was, by no means, meant as an excuse for bad puppet theatre.  Yes,
critics care whether they are reviewing dance or theatre.  Otherwise, we
would not have theatre critics and dance critics, we would just have
critics.  Puppetry is generally reviewed by theatre critics, though
sometimes by dance critics (as quite often in the Village Voice).  The
critics need the education, experience, and knowledge of the medium they
are reviewing, or they would not be asking Robert "How do I review
puppetry?".  Though we are a theatrical performance, there are certain
things unique to our art form, which differentiate us from "meat
theater", and it is this that the critics, and we, should know.

As far as the general public is concerned, they too, should know and
want to see the things that make us different from actor's theatre.  If
not, how are we going to convince them to spend their money,
occasionally, on us and not the other.  But as I expressed before, as an
individual artist, outside of presenting as much puppet theatre as
possible, I am not quite sure how to do this.  Any suggestions would be
appreciated.

Preston




--------------B1729D00F346783980342000

HTML VERSION:


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005