Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:43:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Yvette Edery <art_goo-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: PUPT: right on Q - or not, or maybe...


Hi all. I've been following along on this debate for a while and have yet to see anyone mention that puppetry skills may also be a talent we're "born with" in the same way singers are "born with" their talent. Is it naive to think that perhaps those of us that are kinestheticly dominant in our sensory experience of the world might be predisposed to puppetry before auditoryily dominant artists who become singers? Being at NYU, which has no puppetry department, I come across people everyday who love puppetry and have never even considered using it in their films or work because they had no idea they had any access to it. So, yes, some people are using puppets and have no skills  or education in relation to the craft, and to be honest, they stink. But some people pick up a puppet and with the right kind of training are immediately taken with the craft and can be taught so easily because they just "have the bug" and were made for it. Those people, with training, can become super. If you
 are born tone-deaf, chances are, even with training you will not become an opera singer. Likewise, if you are totally unaware of body kinesthesiology your puppetry will look like the dolly dancing. Food for thought: perhaps singing and acting aren't better because you can't be trained to do them; perhaps puppetry is just as fine a craft because you can't always be trained to do that well either. 
 
Yvette Edery

Mary Robinette Kowal <maryrk-AT-earthlink.net> wrote:
The opinions listed below are solely the opinions of the author and in no
way reflect the opinions of the greater puppetry community.

Okay- So, I've been following the discussion and it's helped me clarify
some of my own thoughts. Hurrah. I think that puppetry is a form of
acting, or at the very least they use related languages to communicate with
the audience. I have long thought that the major difference between a
puppet actor and a meat actor (I know it's a little derogatory, but I can't
think of another distinct term right now. Forgive me for the sake of
argument) is that they use different tools. In both types of acting, the
actor wants to disappear into the character. As a puppeteer I use the
physical tool of the puppet to express that character. As a meat actor, I
use the physical tool of my body to express that character. For both there
are elements of the performance that I have to consider that I would not
have to consider with the other. The illusion of gravity as a puppeteer,
for instance.

I think I'm a fairly decent puppet actor, but am pretty stilted as a more
conventional actor. I have no practice using the physical tool of my body.
Strange isn't it? The vocal work of my acting crosses over, but I don't
know how to submerge my own physical presence inside a character. It is
easier when the puppet expresses that physical character for you. It's
easier to see how to move, when the thing that is moving is outside
yourself.

Still, I think that it is possible that not everyone can do puppetry really
well anymore than everyone can sing. Make noise or wiggle the dolly, yes,
but nothing beyond that. If you've ever done any training, then you know
that there is a certain small group of people for whom the puppet becomes
more lifeless than when it is lying on the bench. I asked my voice coach
about singing and she said that genetics determine what your range is, and
how much power you have, but that otherwise anyone can learn to
sing,(provided they aren't tone deaf); musicality is harder to teach.

So. That leaves me with the uncomfortable idea that the physical technique
of puppetry is easier to pick than I would like to admit, but not
necessarily the "musicality" of the performance. When training someone
from a stage background, the acting in the performance uses the same skills
of any acting performance, plus the ones specific to puppetry. Any other
differences come down to technique. Maybe. I might have to think about
that some more.

Still, when all is said and done, I think the real thing that makes me
cranky is better defined as defensiveness. If it's so easy to train
someone to work a puppet then what have I been doing with my life?

Yours,
Mary

-----

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


> [Original Message]
> From: Christopher H. 
> To: PuppetCrit 

> Date: 2/6/04 10:05:43 AM
> Subject: PUPT: right on Q - or not
>
> I am finally finding some time to reply to the Avenue Q inspired thread.
It
> is a rather long reply so feel free to scan or delete.
>
> >
> >on 1/29/04 8:13 PM, Mary Robinette Kowal at maryrk-AT-earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >> I had a recent string of thoughts that I'd like to share with you all.
One
> >> of the understudies for "Avenue Q" left the production (to do a show
for
> >> Nickelodeon) and the producers replaced him with an actor with no
puppetry
> >> experience. They narrowed it down to two potentials and ran both of
them
> >> past Rick Lyon who said that one was trainable.
> >>
> >> My immediate reaction to this was one of disappointment and anger. 
After
> >> all, if they decide that puppetry is an easily acquired skill then they
> >> will be less likely to hire one of us. I would have been less upset
if the
> 
> >> All of this leaves me with this question as well- The new understudy
went
> >> through intensive puppetry training to be ready to go on. At what
point
> >> does someone who learns puppetry for a role become a puppeteer?
> >>
> >> I think my answer is the same as it would be for singers; one is a
> >> puppeteer when it becomes natural; when it ceases to be a tool that
needs
> >> to be thought about to be used. Puppetry needs to be as natural as
> >> breathing, just like a song.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Mary Robinette
> >>
> Sometimes (many times?) there are other factors involved beyond the basic
> skill set needed to fill a position, especially in a big business slot
like
> a broadway show. I think back to the Clown College application I filled
out
> for Ringling and some of the seeming irrelevant questions on it, and some
of
> the clowns that were hired for the road. Physical size, disposition, and
so
> on sometimes meant as much or more than the talent. I am not saying this
is
> 100% right, just that it is a reality and that some of the more talented
> people that were less suited for the lifestyle didn't last long on the
show.
>
> There is also the aspect of having to train out certian inappropriate
> skills or learned techniques (I am avoiding just labeling them as wrong,
as
> they might be right for one situation, but wrong for the situation at
hand.)
> before training in thedesired ones. Sometimes it is easier and less time
> consuming to start with a relatively clean slate. Thus the choice of
> training an actor to be the kind of puppeteer you want in a situation
rather
> than retraining a puppeteer for the same thing. This may or may not be
part
> of the situation here.
> So when does one become a puppeteer? I would say once one begins
performing
> with puppets. That may be a far cry from being a "real" puppeteer, which
> takes time and experience. I don't know that it is when it becomes as
> natural as breathing. In an ideal world it would be that easy, but in the
> real world many of us have to work at it. It is the truely gifted ones
that
> make it look so easy and natural dispite the hard work. And of course
those
> people make it look so easy that people think "oh, anybody can do that".
> While it may be true that anybody can do it, few can do it that well and
> gracefully. Sometimes the works aspect is so natural and insepperable for
> some people that they forget it is really a part that many neglect. Mary,
I
> feel sure you are one of these people. It's one of the reasons I admire
you
> and your work. I KNOW the work is there, and yet you make it look like it
is
> not work at all. Like you just pick it up and do it. Maybe there is less
> work now, but the foundation is solid and you continue to build. Wish I
had
> that much drive and disipline.
>
> >on 1/30/04 9:02 PM, Bear Town at beartown-AT-bear-town.com wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> I would say that depends on your definition of puppetry. For me the puppet
> part is pretty natural. So are many of the other parts of the show. But
> there are also many parts that I have to work hard to make look natural -
> design, singing, dancing. Yikes! Even with gobs of experience behind me,
> when I have these things (among others) I know I have work to do.
>
> >> When does a puppeteer decide that they're good enough?
> Good enough? Good enough for what or whom? I guess there are times that we
> all decide that "that's good enough" and I'm sure that there are people
who
> decide that they are good enough. I decided long ago that I am good enough
> in and for many things but that I still have lots of room to grow and
> improve. In other word, good enough that I won't be embarassed by what I
do,
> but not so good I can't get any better. Of course, IMHO, there are people
> who decide they are good enough that have decided not to grow past their
> current level. I am reminded of the fellow student who was flattered when
> the teacher told him that he had taught him all that he could. The student
> took it to mean that there was no more to be learned. The teacher of
course
> meant that the student had learned all that he was open to and had stopped
> learning.
> I think that most things may be good enough at some point or they will
> never be done. As Terry would say "Finished is better than perfick". Most
> everything can be improved, and sometimes we will continue to work on
> something in phases even after it is "good enough" in an effort to make it
> better. But at some point you have to quit diddling with it and let it be
> good enough for now.
>
> >> And what if someone consciously rejects the art form's generally
accepted
> standards and chooses
> >> to beat themselves a completely new path?
> Hmm, you mean like Jim Henson? I would say he is a prime example. I think
> that about 98% of modern tv (and movie) puppetry follows in the trail the
> the Henson family blazed, and continues to blaze. There are other who have
> chosen to go beyond the standards and blaze new (though maybe not
completely
> different) paths as well.
>
> >> I think after ten years I am not bad, but I'm am constantly analyzing
what I
> >> do, trying to learn new things. I think my brain has wrapped itself
around
> >> the basics of puppetry, but I hope I never get to the point where I've
> >> learned everything.
> You will never learn everything. There is just too much to learn in this
> field for one person to learn all of it in one life time. You might,
> however, learn everything you wish to know. There is nothing wrong with
that
> if you can manage to keep applying what you know in new ways and find ways
> to keep it fresh. If not, perhaps it will be time to look at something
else.
> But that's just my opinion.
>
> >> 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 have not noticed many puppeteers that "phone in" their work. Some, yes,
> but many? Really?
> It may be a matter of semanitcs, but I would say most of the best
puppeteers
> are completely comfortable with their puppetry. I think they have to be to
> make it look natural/easy. They may not be completely satisfied with it,
> always feeling there is something new or some improvement they can make,
but
> they are comfortable with it.
>
> >on 1/31/04 12:24 AM, Mathieu Rene at uubald-AT-magma.ca wrote:
> >
> > Typical cliché of mine: "Oh, I'm not the puppeteer, I make the puppets
for
> puppeteers".
> > Some might call it a lack of self confidence, which it definitely was
at the
> > source, in my case.
> > I realise I'm using the begginner card as a shield, a crutch even, to
avoid
> > assuming the full weight of my chosen career. Although I intend to
maintain
> > a healthy amount of uncertainty, of unsatisfaction, to keep growing.
> It seems to me that if you only make puppets at this point and do not
> perform with them, however amatuer or basic that performance may be, you
are
> not a puppeteer yet. You are, as you say, the puppet maker. The person who
> makes costumes is not the actor. The person who builds the plane is not
the
> pilot. All right, they may be both, just as a puppet maker may be a
> puppeteer, but one does become a puppeteer by simply making a puppet
anymore
> than one becomes a brain surgeon by making a surgical knife. The puppet is
> the tool or instrument of the puppeteer. The more tools the puppeteer has
at
> his/her disposal the better off they will be and hopefully will be a
better
> puppeteer. Experience, training, and practice in acting, singing, voice
> work, dance, carpentry, sewing, etc. etc. etc. only make a better
performer.
> I have never heard anyone honestly say "Oh, learning more has made me a
much
> lesser performer. I wish I had never taken those classes. If I could only
> forget how to dance I would be much better off today."
>
> >on 1/31/04 11:46 AM, BFall at bfall-AT-toledolibrary.org wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Mathieu:
> >>
> >> I think you're on the right track here! I'll bet that you are by far
your
> >> own toughest critic. Your comments remind me of a couple things:
> >>
> >> 1. When I was in college I took a course in radio, just for fun. I
used to
> >> worry about all the technical errors I made, but I discovered when our
> >> teacher gave us tapes of our shows, that those errors were barely
noticeable
> >> (The flatness of my voice, however, was something to work on!).
> >>
> >> 2. I used to belong to a storytelling group. Often we'd begin our
stories
> >> with, "OK. I just started trying to learn this . . .". We made a
rule --
> >> No disclaimers!
> >>
> >> I guess it all just comes down to "Just do it".
> >>
> To me, what it comes down to is this: if you have to appologize for what
> you are about to do, DON'T DO IT! Even if you are just begining, get as
> prepared as you can and do your thing. At the end you can thank the
audience
> for coming and, if you want, express your hope that they enjoyed it. If
you
> appologize you are setting a negative tone that you will have to overcome.
> If you absolutely feel you MUST inform the audience that this is a new
piece
> or that you are new to the art, exclaim it with a possitive like "This is
a
> brand new story for me and I'm sure you will enjoy it as much as I do. I
can
> hardly wait to begin..."
> There is nothing wrong with being your own toughest critic, unless you
> believe and put too much weight on what a critic says. Ideally a critic is
> expressing an educated even-handed opinion, but that is not always the
case,
> especially with our own work. Finding the faults in your work in order to
> improve is a good thing. Finding fault in your own work (or anyone else's
> for that matter) to tear it down, belittle and devalue it is wrong and
self
> defeating. I think there is a big difference between honest self
evaluatin,
> navel gazing, and self flaggation.
> Oh, I could go on and on about this as it is one of those peeves I keep
> caged out back. When it gets loose it is hard to get it back in the cage.
> Better stop now.
>
> >on 2/2/04 12:43 PM, Robert Smythe at robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org wrote:
> >
> >>> 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?
> I think the key word in the above was "pretentious" and not the "capital
A"
> actor. I admit it is somewhat gratifying to see someone unduely
pretentious
> brought down a notch. It's not pretty (and in fact it is petty), but I
guess
> it brings out a base instint in all of us. I guess perverse glee is the
> proper term. Like like watching an agressive driver in a fancy car slide
off
> into the ditch. You hope they aren't seriously hurt but pray that their
ego
> and wallet are badly bruised and that they suffer a wake up call. Sadly
> though, you know that they will shake it off and go on as if nothing
> happened, just like that pretentious actor.
>
> >> 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 think that was a point of Mary's original post. Why not hire someone
who
> knows the artform rather than train someone to fake it well? I would liken
> it to having an actor learn how to ride a horse for a movie about a rodeo
> rider. Riding a horse does not make one a rodeo rider. In the movies they
> have the advantage of doubles and multiple takes. On Broadway that is not
> the case. I don't know who auditioned but it may have been, in the casting
> director's opinion, a matter of choice between training an actor/singer to
> become a puppeteer or trying to train a puppeteer to be an actor/singer of
> Broadway quality. In my opinion a good actor/singer has a greater chance
of
> coming up to passable speed as puppeteer in a few short weeks than many
> puppeteers have of coming up to speed as an actor/singer in the same time
> frame. Darn it. Now I have the image of trying to train a rodeo rider to
be
> an actor in the same amount of time as training an actor to ride and
rope. I
> think I'd rather just saddle up and ride off a cliff.
>
> >> 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.
> Really? So what would you call what we are doing now? I think there is a
lot
> more discussion about the technical aspects since the artform, oops -
excuse
> me, techinque, requires the object of puppet to be performed. On a acting
> forum would you not get lots of discussion about the merits of different
> techniques - Misner, method, and so on?
> I disagree that puppetry is not an artform. No generally recognized
> aesthetic that seperates it from its parent? Hello? What is the puppet?
Not
> seperate? That must be why the general public thinks of puppetry and
theater
> on the same level. Must be why they leave the children home when they get
in
> their tuxes and long dresses to come to my puppet shows. Just as the paint
> and brush are used in a particular style and technique to create a certian
> art, the puppet is the tool used with a particular technique to create
art,
> therefor puppetry is the artform. Yes, puppetry is a large branch (with
many
> smaller branches) on the theater tree, but it is definitely a seperate art
> from people theater. At times the branches cross and get tangled and
people
> theater and puppet theater feed off of the same stock and roots, but they
> are no more the same than brain surgery and proctology. Yes, one can do
both
> but unless you have your head up your wazoo you don't want one doing the
> surgery the other should be doing. I can agree that puppetry is a subset,
> but only if one conciders people theater as a subset as well. As in the
> painting analogy, you have to add opera, dance, and other theatrical arts
to
> the greater picture and then it emerges that both are subsets or branches
of
> the same mighty oak. And if you really go back it might just emerge that

=== message truncated ==
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

--- 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/html
---


  --- Personal replies to: Yvette Edery <art_goo-AT-yahoo.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