Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:38:15 -0500
Subject: Re: PUPT: Re: Thoughts on Avenue Q
From: "Christopher Hudert" <christopher-AT-applauseunlimited.com>


>From: Robert Smythe <robertsmythe-AT-mumpuppet.org>
>Subject: Re: PUPT: Re: Thoughts on Avenue Q
>Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 11:39 AM
>
>
>There are many puppeteers who believe that they must have the skills of 
>a master cabinetmaker/sculptor before they can begin to explore the 
>performance side of puppetry, and that every new production requires 
>building a new set of instruments. By limiting the idea of puppetry to 
>the creation of the object, I believe puppetry is not making the 
>contributions to the larger world of theater that it can and should.
>
<clip>
>
>Why does it seem so hard to accept that puppetry might have a lot in 
>common with other performance forms?
>
>
>Robert Smythe
>Artistic Director
>Mum Puppettheatre
----------

Huh? Limiting the idea of puppetry to the creation of the object? Who said
or implied that? I don't recall anyone limiting puppetry to object creation
at all. One can certainly be a puppeteer without ever creating a puppet. I,
along with many others I'm sure, did puppetry for quite a while before I
ever made a puppet. Puppetry is more about manipulation of the object in
performance and creating WITH the object than creation OF the object. 
I don't find it hard to accept that puppetry has a lot in common with other
performance forms. Indeed I would agree whole heartedly. It has much in
common with dance, music, theater, opera, poetry, prose, debate, and on and
on. It draws on and builds from many performance forms. But it also differs
enough that it is its own art form. Branches and subbranches of the same
tree - performance.

Christopher



  --- Personal replies to: "Christopher Hudert" <christopher-AT-applauseunlimited.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