From: Robert Smythe <robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org>
Subject: Re: PUPT: Re: Thoughts on Avenue Q
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:43:34 -0500


> When I used to be involved with auditioning actors for black light 
> puppetry,
> we took a lot of perverse glee in trying out pretentious "capital A" 
> actors
> who looked down their noses at puppetry. An hour of them fumbling 
> through
> our routines usually left them with a lot of sore muscles and a new
> appreciation for the artform.


Why is it that the technical aspects of puppetry make it an artform? 
Surely, then, weightlifting would outrank puppetry, based on that 
criterion. Technical proficiency does not an artist, nor an artform, 
make.

While you decry the "capital A" actors who look down on puppetry, 
aren't you practicing reverse snobbism here?

Let's not drive a wedge between different groups. But consider this:

an actor (or dancer, or other performer) is hired to perform with a 
puppet and is able to pick up the needed skills in order to perform. So 
what? When movie stars in the old studio days needed to learn how to 
dance, they picked up the steps and made a movie. I'm sure that put 
some dancers' noses out of joint, but does any one really mind that 
that star was in that movie? There is that extra something in a 
performance that is greater than the sum of its parts. Puppetry's great 
magic is due to that: a number of things contribute to an experience 
that cannot be duplicated. It is not enough to just wiggle the dollies: 
depending on who's doing the wiggling there is a real difference in 
what happens between the performer and the audience.

I've been reading this thread and noticed that some would set puppetry 
apart from theater at large. It isn't separate: it's a subset, as 
watercolor and oil painting are a subset of two-dimensional art. 
Puppetry is a technique, not an artform. It has no generally recognized 
aesthetic that is separate from its parent, theater. In the discussions 
that have raged over this board for years no one has yet come up with 
any kind of system for evaluating work with a puppet that is any 
different from evaluating dance or theater. In fact, it is interesting 
that the only discussions that attract a lot of contributors are about 
the objects and how to make them: very little time is spent talking 
about what is done with the objects after they are made.

If you feel that actors with a capital A look down their noses at 
puppeteers, try looking at it from another point of view. A talented 
watercolorist who has no idea or understanding of other genres and 
techniques of painting or art-making, can be easily dismissed by other 
painters who may well respect what the watercolorist does ("he's good 
at that kind of thing") but expect nothing more from him, and with good 
reason: he has removed himself from the larger picture.

Jean Claude Leportier has made the point that puppetry is like music 
and requires a performer (with musicality) an instrument (which is 
appropriate for the skill level of the performer and the piece to be 
played) and a score (which is worth playing). Very often, I think, 
puppeteers focus too much on the instrument.

Just my two cents.


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/enriched
---


  --- Personal replies to: Robert Smythe <robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org>
  --- 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