Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:26:07 EDT
Subject: Re: PUPT: Eureka!


In a message dated 9/24/2002 1:34:50 PM Central Daylight Time, 
wsjones-AT-basingstoke.org writes:

<< Sometimes the performer is ahead of his time.
 "Carmen" was a flop...
 ...but in time..people began to love it.
 
 Picasso was ahead of his time...
 That's happened in many fields of art.
 
 occasionally a performer/artist is creating in a new world of 
 ideas...which we, the "audience " may have to learn to grow into...  >>

    And once again we fall into the thorny question: Are we artistes or are 
we entertainers? Are we playwrights or performing aritsts, or what are we? 
Let's name all the puppet scripts that are now regarded as great literature: 
Pencils ready? Go! 
    Keep in mind that Shakespeare had to tow (toe?) the party line regularly, 
avoiding inflammatory anti-royalist sentiments in his scripts, or he could 
expect the play to be shut down pronto. Just like other playwrights, he often 
worked apologetic prologues or epilogues into his plays. Somehow he managed 
to live with himself, nonetheless.
    Then what about such ahead-of-their-time greats as Schoenberg or Charles 
Ives. Yeah, they were ahead of their time, and they must still be ahead of 
their time, because where are the audiences lining up to listen to them now? 
Next door where Dvorak is on the bill. 
    Carmen remains great because of two things-- it speaks to the heart a 
hundred years ago and today, and because it can be performed well by any 
number of different singers and performers and still be great. Different art 
designers can take a shot at it, and it is still great. It is great on paper. 
But most performances of great puppet shows rely entirely not on a great, 
enternal script, but on the performer(s) and in some cases the designs and 
puppets. Few puppeteers' scripts can be automatically handed over to another 
company and still blow the audience away. The puppets, if they are good 
enough, may end up in museums. 
    So: are we artistes, or are we entertainers? Those of us who hope to ever 
make a profit at this accept the lesser label of entertainers, and accept the 
fact that as entertainers, we should stoop to entertaining. I do occasionally 
dabble in more daring productions, but seldom charge much for performances, 
because I would rather have an audience than not. For the entertainment 
performances, I can pretty much name my price, and strangely enough, I enjoy 
entertaining people. Somehow they seem to enjoy it too. Where's the downside 
of this? 
    And one caveat-- what does it say about us if we look down upon our 
audiences from our lofty level and expect them to rise to our exalted view? 

My ten cents,
Alice


  --- Personal replies to: HobgoblinH-AT-aol.com
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Archives at:         http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons