File spoon-archives/puptcrit.archive/puptcrit_2003/puptcrit.0306, message 19


From: "Mervyn Millar" <mervmillar-AT-mail.com>
Subject: RE: PUPT: Puppet Criticism Again: A Call for Ideas!
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:59:47 +0100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


I think John's basically right on this one, although the (mis)representation
of the US overseas is, I suspect, a side argument (I am not, and never have
been, an American, and suspect that you should be interested in reading
analyses of your art form wherever you're from).
Robert, you started your last saying you would define better what you want -
but that's not what you went on to do. Perhaps it's criticism of specific
productions that you're after - but these are pretty "useless" if you
haven't seen the production in question - or at least they'll yield scant
principles for general usage.
I kept Will's post because I, too found it interesting. He discusses the act
of reviewing a bit and then goes on to look at Twist's show from a quite
scholarly, historical viewpoint - and it's superior to the more frustrating
reviews, I suspect, because it gives an informed context to the work. He
also ends with a question. If you're discussing reviewing then this is not
normally what a newspaper would want from their correspondents (except
perhaps in a feature which uses a specific production as a launchpad). Maybe
that's the sort of article you want to look for, Robert.
But please don't dismiss John's excellent bibliography. I've looked for
others from my reading lists and library but I can't add anything that
seriously tries to examine what puppetry is and how it works, except for
Meyerhold's great essay on 'The Fairground Booth'. There's a huge range of
tones in those titles, between Bogatyrev or Veltrusky's short pieces for
academic journals and the Scherzers' very pragmatic look at comic effects.
You seem to be taking issue with the terminology that is used in academic
study, but at the same time yearning for a clear assessment of your subject.
The reason that terms like semiotics, signifiers and, for that matter,
'performance object' (which you use and I am not familiar with) is because
of genuine attempts by people interested in puppetry, theatre, meaning and
art to find out what makes it all tick. It's for me to find out exactly what
you mean by 'performance object' if I want to understand your thinking
fully. And usually those writers who coin a term (as can be necessary when
trying to define something as slippy at puppetry) will define it. I seem to
remember Proschan, Bil Baird, and especially Steve Tillis being great on how
hard it is to define a puppet (let alone figure out why they're so moving
and/or funny). These aren't difficult to read because they're being
exclusive, they're difficult to read because they're trying to be precise
and "useful".
If you really find these too hard going and you find a less formal style
easier, try reading anecdotes from puppeteers' memoirs. Lots of them will
have read these books and their insights will be informed by them.
Also, if your audience is made up of dance scholars and dancers, maybe read
up on dance theory and see where similar concepts overlap. I would have
thought that would be a more accessible starting point.

And if you do come up with an original theory exploring puppetry and dance,
do post it on the list.


Mervyn


  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of john bell
  Sent: 11 June 2003 22:17
  To: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Subject: Re: PUPT: Puppet Criticism Again: A Call for Ideas!


          So, in June of 2003, at this quite delicate and particular moment
in the history of the world, when our country is the most potent,
unpredictable, and--for many--fearsome force on the planet, the United
States will be represented in symposia for students of dance criticism at
the 10th Annual International Dance Festival and Conference in Bytom, Poland
by an American who feels that the combined efforts of scores of European and
American minds over the entire course of the twentieth century (some of them
great minds) are, as a whole, neither "useful" nor "interesting."
          I'm not sure if this is incredibly amusing or tragic, and opt for
the funny side.
          I very much hope that when Robert Smythe explains his point of
view to those assembled at the conference, he takes care to note that he
does not represent us all.  The United States has such a rotten reputation
in the world just now, and I think we need to be very careful about how we
articulate ourselves abroad, where any American becomes a de facto
representative of our country.  As a nation, we have of late been scaring
the rest of the world with our passionate certitudes.
          Perhaps in Poland Mr. Smythe can search out Professor Henryk
Jurkowski, a great thinker about puppet theater who might have helpful
advice about the "uselessness" of all previously written criticism and
theory.  If such an encounter happens, I would respectfully suggest that
Robert avoid starting off with the kind of sweeping ad hoc denunciations he
has lately articulated here.  Certainly Poland has one of the most amazing
traditions of puppet theater in the world, and I trust that Robert will
approach the land of Kantor, Wyspianski, Witkiewicz, Leon Schiller,
Grotowski, and all the great Polish puppeteers with interest and respect.
          Finally, since Robert has apparently digested all the salient
aspects of puppet theory and criticism and found them to be totally without
value, I hope that he will soon enlighten the rest of us with his own
criticism and theory, which I look forward to reading.

  john bell
  great small works


HTML VERSION:

I think John's basically right on this one, although the (mis)representation of the US overseas is, I suspect, a side argument (I am not, and never have been, an American, and suspect that you should be interested in reading analyses of your art form wherever you're from).
Robert, you started your last saying you would define better what you want - but that's not what you went on to do. Perhaps it's criticism of specific productions that you're after - but these are pretty "useless" if you haven't seen the production in question - or at least they'll yield scant principles for general usage.
I kept Will's post because I, too found it interesting. He discusses the act of reviewing a bit and then goes on to look at Twist's show from a quite scholarly, historical viewpoint - and it's superior to the more frustrating reviews, I suspect, because it gives an informed context to the work. He also ends with a question. If you're discussing reviewing then this is not normally what a newspaper would want from their correspondents (except perhaps in a feature which uses a specific production as a launchpad). Maybe that's the sort of article you want to look for, Robert.
But please don't dismiss John's excellent bibliography. I've looked for others from my reading lists and library but I can't add anything that seriously tries to examine what puppetry is and how it works, except for Meyerhold's great essay on 'The Fairground Booth'. There's a huge range of tones in those titles, between Bogatyrev or Veltrusky's short pieces for academic journals and the Scherzers' very pragmatic look at comic effects. You seem to be taking issue with the terminology that is used in academic study, but at the same time yearning for a clear assessment of your subject. The reason that terms like semiotics, signifiers and, for that matter, 'performance object' (which you use and I am not familiar with) is because of genuine attempts by people interested in puppetry, theatre, meaning and art to find out what makes it all tick. It's for me to find out exactly what you mean by 'performance object' if I want to understand your thinking fully. And usually those writers who coin a term (as can be necessary when trying to define something as slippy at puppetry) will define it. I seem to remember Proschan, Bil Baird, and especially Steve Tillis being great on how hard it is to define a puppet (let alone figure out why they're so moving and/or funny). These aren't difficult to read because they're being exclusive, they're difficult to read because they're trying to be precise and "useful".
If you really find these too hard going and you find a less formal style easier, try reading anecdotes from puppeteers' memoirs. Lots of them will have read these books and their insights will be informed by them.
Also, if your audience is made up of dance scholars and dancers, maybe read up on dance theory and see where similar concepts overlap. I would have thought that would be a more accessible starting point.
 
And if you do come up with an original theory exploring puppetry and dance, do post it on the list.
 
 
Mervyn
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of john bell
Sent: 11 June 2003 22:17
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: PUPT: Puppet Criticism Again: A Call for Ideas!

        So, in June of 2003, at this quite delicate and particular moment in the history of the world, when our country is the most potent, unpredictable, and--for many--fearsome force on the planet, the United States will be represented in symposia for students of dance criticism at the 10th Annual International Dance Festival and Conference in Bytom, Poland by an American who feels that the combined efforts of scores of European and American minds over the entire course of the twentieth century (some of them great minds) are, as a whole, neither "useful" nor "interesting." 
        I'm not sure if this is incredibly amusing or tragic, and opt for the funny side.
        I very much hope that when Robert Smythe explains his point of view to those assembled at the conference, he takes care to note that he does not represent us all.  The United States has such a rotten reputation in the world just now, and I think we need to be very careful about how we articulate ourselves abroad, where any American becomes a de facto representative of our country.  As a nation, we have of late been scaring the rest of the world with our passionate certitudes.
        Perhaps in Poland Mr. Smythe can search out Professor Henryk Jurkowski, a great thinker about puppet theater who might have helpful advice about the "uselessness" of all previously written criticism and theory.  If such an encounter happens, I would respectfully suggest that Robert avoid starting off with the kind of sweeping ad hoc denunciations he has lately articulated here.  Certainly Poland has one of the most amazing traditions of puppet theater in the world, and I trust that Robert will approach the land of Kantor, Wyspianski, Witkiewicz, Leon Schiller, Grotowski, and all the great Polish puppeteers with interest and respect.
        Finally, since Robert has apparently digested all the salient aspects of puppet theory and criticism and found them to be totally without value, I hope that he will soon enlighten the rest of us with his own criticism and theory, which I look forward to reading.

john bell
great small works
        
--- Personal replies to: "Mervyn Millar" --- 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

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005