Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:30:24 -0500
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] (no subject)



It seems to me the interest in the issue of puppet criticism lies more 
in the kind of remark David said about "I would also expect the person 
doing the critique of a puppet performance to take into consideration, 
and comment upon, the over all design and manipulation of the figures." 
We all want a great experience at the theatre, whether we are watching 
puppets or human actors. But what makes a great experience? Do the same 
elements make a great experience for each of these artistic forms? Or, 
when watching puppet theatre, are there different elements we want to 
pay attention to and take into account and think about how to evaluate? 
And if so, how do we judge success and virtuosity in this arena? Just 
as you wouldn't apply the same criteria to a dance or even an opera 
performance as you would to a theatrical performance,  your attention 
is not placed in the same place with theatre and puppetry. So where 
should a critic be placing his/her attention? How should a critic be 
appraising those elements unique to puppetry? The lypsinching 
discussion is a very good example. Is this part of the art a critic 
should be looking for? Obviously someone trained to look at theatre may 
not be taking this skill into account, or noting that it is a skill at 
all. Does it ever become an interesting choice with a speaking puppet 
to intentionally or accidentally not lypsinch well? How can such 
choices within the limits and expanse of what the form of puppetry has 
to offer contribute to meaning, interpretation and overall theatrical 
experience?

This is the direction I'm thinking.
Thanks. Claudia


_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org