From: "Mary Robinette Kowal" <maryrk-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: PUPT: Re: Thoughts on Avenue Q
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:30:40 -0800


I wrote:
Puppetry needs to be as natural as
> > breathing, just like a song.

Beartown/Andrew wrote:
> I think this should be the goal of every puppeteer, but I don't think it
> should be a prerequisite for calling yourself one.

Allow me to clarify my thoughts.  On the one hand- I agree with you about
the accessibility of puppetry or cartooning, but I think that it's
important to recognize the difference that context makes.  Take the violin.
Anyone can pick it up and make a sound, but it takes a lot of practice
before you can make a sound that is pleasant.  More practice still before
achieving musicality.  At all stages it is appropriate to say that "I'm a
violinist."  

BUT when the symphony is holding auditions for violinists I think there is
a distinction between someone who is "a violinist" and someone who "plays
the violin."  I don't think this is elitism, at least I hope it isn't.  In
this context I hope that it's about whether or not someone is qualified for
a job.  I played violin for seventeen years.  I since gone from being a
violinist, to being someone who plays the violin, to being someone who used
to play violin.

Beartown/Andrew goes on to write something that I will quote at length
because I think it's important.

> I'm going to take this in a bit of an erratic and philosophical direction
> here, but does puppetry ever become completely natural for anyone anyway?
> When does a puppeteer decide that they're good enough? And what if someone
> consciously rejects the art form's generally accepted standards and
chooses
> to beat themselves a completely new path?
...
> I've noticed many puppeteers get to a certain point and then start to
"phone
> in" their work or at best they just don't feel the need to challenge
> themselves anymore. But the best puppeteers I've seen are never completely
> comfortable with their puppetry. They are always pushing, testing,
> challenging. It's a never-ending quest for them.

I will argue that many things in puppetry do become completely natural. 
For instance, it's been years since I've had to consciously think about
doing a swing-step with a table-top puppet, or lip-sync with a moving mouth
puppet.  That doesn't mean that I don't have to work when I encounter
something new.  I did a show where I was handling a puppet with five rods,
solo.  It made my brain hurt when we began, but by the end of the run I
didn't have to think about the rods, just the performance.  

That I think is the key to being natural; one reaches a point where the
technique is not the issue, the performance is all that matters.  To use my
violin analogy from earlier- If you give me scales I can play them without
thinking about fingers, or the pressure and speed of the bow.  A new piece
of music will take me a while to learn and for a while I'll be thinking
about fingering and the bow, about my technique, but once I've learned the
piece it becomes all about the music.  The really good violinists can
sight-read; unless it's a very difficult piece, they don't have to think
about technique anymore.

Just because puppetry is accessible (and should be so) doesn't mean that it
shouldn't have the standards applied to it the way the rest of the arts do.
Go ahead, hate me because I want to see the bar raised.

Mary

PS  I love George Latshaw's book too.

-----

Mary Robinette Kowal
Other Hand Productions
http://www.otherhandproductions.com



  --- Personal replies to: "Mary Robinette Kowal" <maryrk-AT-earthlink.net>
  --- 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