To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:50:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] critics



One of the challenges facing critics today is the wide range of puppeteering 
styles being offered.  One must judge not only the performance, but also the 
particular style being used.

One example: I saw "Avenue Q" with a friend and enjoyed it, with 
reservations.  He hated it, however, because the puppeteers were so visible. 
  He is a puppet-builder, and said he found it impossible to watch a puppet 
when it was right next to the very expressive fact of the puppeteer.  I had 
to admit that during most of the performance, I found myself watching the 
puppeteers rather than the puppets.  It actually felt kind of silly to be 
watching this cloth puppet when there was a far more facile human face right 
next to it.  Did others find this to be true?

So modern critics have to look at not only the show, but also the particular 
choices that were made in its presentation.  And your feelings about that, 
as with all criticism, are highly personal.

Mark


Message: 12
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:30:24 -0500
From: corenste-AT-hunter.cuny.edu
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] (no subject)
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Message-ID: <20060117133024.kx781geoe2uc4wgc-AT-webmail.hunter.cuny.edu>


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