Archives for the month of: July, 2012

This image is a close-up of a spider web with dew. It is an allegory of what’s going on in my head at the moment. I have all these great and sparkling ideas but the path there…

I want to share a couple more surprising tidbits from my reading lately.

So, the reigning powers tried to marginalize popular theatre  (I am not just talking about puppet theatre, but all forms of entertainment for the masses). In the article The golden age of the boulevard Marvin Carlson describes the rise of popular theatre from  fair ground attraction to permanent stages around the Boulevard du Temple in Paris, where all the entertaining stages conglomerated. The Boulevard got the nick-name Boulevard of Crime in the 1820s, not because it was dangerous to go there, but because what was on show. The Almanach of Spectacles  1823  published the numbers of crimes performed on the stages (for twenty years):

… Tautin has been stabbed 16,302 times, Marty has been poisoned in various ways 11,000 times, Fresnoy has been murdered 27,000 times, Mlle Adele Dupuis has been the innocent victim of 75,000 seductions, abductions, or drownings, 6,500 capital charges have tested Mlle Levesque’s virtues and Mlle Oliver, whose career is scarcely launched, has already tasted the cup of crime and vengeance 16,000 times.

Sounds like a normal year on TV to me.

John Houchin recounts in his article The origins of the cabaret artistique how the cabaret moved from a place where artists performed their own material for their peers to a public establishment to make money.

By 1900 the cabaret had become a competitive, commercial undertaking. Owners and producers had to devise a point of difference to stand out and attract audiences. The Cabaret de l’Ane Rouge (Cabaret of the Red Ass) had a large fresco depicting the crucifixion of a large red ass. Singers presented café-concert fare and the announcer was a huckster who encouraged the audience to drink. In the Cabaret du Néant (Cabaret of Death) visitors were served at coffins and lighting was provided by corpse lamps. The Cabaret du Ciel (Cabaret of Heaven) featured harp music, a master of ceremonies dressed as priest and a man costumed as an angel sprinkled the audience with holy water. The Cabaret l’Enfer (Cabaret of Infernal Regions) offered the alternative to celestial bliss, a glimpse of hell: The decorations that hung from the ceiling were sculptures of bodies writhing in pain.

All I can say: Move to the side Goths. We have seen it all before :).

Both articles were in Schlechter, J. (ed), Popular Theatre, Routledge 2003.

This painting The conspirators I have done a few years back, when I’ve just started painting in acrylic. This was well before the puppets, but looking at it now I think it is very foreboding, they were already in there.

I am reading this book about Popular Theatre at the moment (Schlechter, J. (ed), Popular Theatre, Routledge 2003). The subtitle is A source book and gee it really is. As a visual artist I never looked at the history of theatre and certainly not at popular theatre. I never really thought about, how important and wide-spread puppetry was in history. Puppets were always part of the common entertainment but their stories were passed on orally. Our (European) cultural inheritance is based on written works by playwrights who had to please their financiers, the small, aristocratic elite. I read somewhere that even Goethe, the great German writer was originally inspired by a puppet show to write his most famous work “Faust”.

Popular Theatre  had to earn their living by attracting the masses. Authorities were unable to control or manipulate it for their own ends and therefore it was often censored or dismissed by governments and academia.  But of course this didn’t work too well, quite to the contrary. As the performers weren’t financially dependent on one particular source, they didn’t need to conform to externally imposed standards. They basically could say what they wanted. Often the more they made fun of the establishment, the bigger audiences they attracted.

Peter Schumann, the great contemporary puppeteer and founder of the Bread and Puppet Theatre said: [puppet theatre is] by definition of its most persuasive characteristics, an anarchic art, subversive and untameable by nature, an art which is easier researched in police records than in theatre chronicles, an art which by fate and spirit does not aspire to represent governments or civilisations, but prefers its own secret and demeaning stature in society, representing, more or less, the demons of that society and definitely not its institutions. [p41]

Monday morning and I am running late. Might have something to do with the Wimbledon finals and us being on the other side of the world (it started at 1 am in the morning here).

This image here  is called Down the road from the fairytale garden. People who know my hometown, know where it is. It is really down the road from the fairytale garden.

This image was taken on an island in the Baltic Sea, called Rügen. I think every German knows the scenery, it has been made famous by the romantic painter Kaspar David Friedrich. Even though the scenery is engraved in the common German memory, I don’t think that quite as many people have actually seen the white cliffs in nature. The island belonged to Eastern Germany when the country was still divided. It was military territory and therefore out of reach.

It is a mystic place, I could not describe it any differently.  We went there in winter (summer might be a different story), and we had the place all to ourselves. The image I had in my post Friends!? was taken at the same place, but at the bottom of the cliffs.

When I look at this image I can hear the silence of the place and feel the protection of the trees all around me. I can feel the springy layer of humus under my feet and smell the damp moss. It is a huge problem I personally have as an image maker in that only I have all this additional information that went into the image and everything comes back instantly when I look at it. My images are always personal memories and this is the reason why I am hesitant to share them. They might evoke emotions in other people, but what the viewer feels will always differ from what I felt.

Of course we all know that advertising imagery is build on the common memory. It is never-fail generic  imagery that evokes feel-good moods. But what is going to happen when we sit in front of the computer day in, day out and never learn what damp moss smells like. Will these images still work?

Landscape images are not really my thing to take. It annoys me tremendously that I can’t capture the grandness of nature. They always look flat. I usually work right at the other end of the scale in space by exploring the minute, the intimate, what’s right at your feet. Here I am often after a simplicity and a sort of flatness (for a lack of a better word). But unlike portraits of people (which I don’t ever attempt to take, except of people I know extremely well) I do sometimes try landscapes.

This morning I couldn’t decide which of the two images I should use today. They couldn’t be more different, so they have both ended up on the blog in one post. One is the weather as it is outside, the other represents more of my inner landscape at the moment. Which is which I won’t say!

Today I am struggling to come up with a coherent thought. When this happens one shouldn’t attempt to write a blog. It’s just a waste of time: Of my own time as I struggle (while I could do something more productive) and of my followers as there is nothing to be gained by reading a piece of ramblings. So I am giving it a miss and just putting up one of my paintings instead. This one is called No! Fullstop. It is a picture I really love for it’s texture and of course the reproduction as a digital image doesn’t do it justice.

These two, Pig and Witch, were early puppets. (If I recall correctly, Witch was the third puppet I ever made). They are a reminder of how relationships change over time. These two were really good mates once, but now they can’t stand each other. I don’t know exactly what happened, but I suspect it is because Witch turned into a health freak and a teetotaler, while Pig likes his booze. Pig is now hanging out with Professor while Witch keeps more or less to herself.

I noticed the more puppets I make the more negative (in my opinion) traits they display. The first lot of fifteen, they were my friends. They have their little quirks, the ones you just reckon with in friends. Some of them I like more, others a little less, but they are all puppets I wouldn’t mind inviting round to my place.

The newer ones are more like acquaintances. I know them, but some of them have traits I totally dislike. The worst is, that I can easily come up with these now.

I have two more books planned for later this year, early next year. The next one will be of course about Puppy the love sick stalker (by the way, he has moved back into the house and he is starting to annoy me) and the following one will be about Hermit loosing his job. Pretty sure all the negative characters will find their place in this one.

I am currently working on a puppet called PushPush. It is one that drives her own agenda, no matter what. Along the way she tramples all over the others. Yes, pretty sure you find her at the average workplace. And then I think, I really need to get started on Procrastinator as well.

Friends! Yes, tell me what constitutes a friend? Now this is a curly and very personal question. I don’t believe it can be answered comprehensively, not even by the most studied people. Last night, the question was brought up in conversation, and this here is another one of my unscientific and personal observations.

In German we have this word “Freund” which looks and sounds very much like the English word “friend”. These two words even have similar meanings and they could be mistaken as being the same. They are not.

In Germany you would only call a very clear and manageable amount of people “Freund.” Everybody else you’ve personally met is an acquaintance or a “friend of a friend”. I think when I left Germany I was down to two friends :).

Of course the Germans still use the two-tier of “you”. They have two terms: The close “Du” and the distant “Sie.” When you address somebody with “Du”, you are usually on a first name basis as well: you are friends. While “Sie” is usually used in combination with the surname. Oh it is all very complicated. To cut a long story short, the term used indicates the closeness of the people involved. The whole thing is a bit looser nowadays than it was when I lived there, but it is still there.

In New Zealand, (I don’t know how it is in other countries, as I have only lived in New Zealand long enough to have formed an opinion), virtually everybody you’ve met twice is your friend. Now this sounds very superficial, doesn’t it? It isn’t really.

For starters there is only one term to address the person opposite: “you.” This little fact tears down a lot of barriers.

Since I moved here the number of people I call friend has grown exponentially. But they all have one thing in common: I know them face-to-face. This fact keeps the number naturally manageable. My friends can drop in on me any time and have a conversation. What constitutes a conversation? (Don’t let me go there, not now… )

The word acquaintance is very rarely used here. I am not quite sure, but it seems if you use the word acquaintance, you have met the person, but don’t really have anything to do with them. I wrecked my brain, but I personally couldn’t come up with anybody I would refer to as an acquaintance here, though in German I would happily use the word for a number of people. I might refer to somebody as a “colleague from xyz” or “an artist guy I know”, or the “plumber who did my bathroom”. But acquaintance, no, I don’t have them in New Zealand.

Now bring on face book… I guess you can figure out my opinion. I’ll go and make a puppet in the meantime.

PS: You have certainly gathered my conversation was with a German :)

 

I have mentioned before on my blog that I am obsessed with eyes. Tree eyes fascinate me, even though I find them sometimes tricky to photograph. I have to think about the camera settings a little bit longer. But with so many other things, the dede puppets pretty much stopped my eye collection in its tracks.

When researching puppets you very quickly come across the name Peter Schumann. He founded the Bread and Puppet Theater in 1963 in New York and in the 70s moved to a farm in Vermont. There they still hold puppet events and workshops today (bread and puppets). A really interesting story.

I was amazed by Peter Schumann’s article “The Radicality of the Puppet Theatre” (reprinted in Schlechter, J (ed). Popular Theatre, Routledge 2003).  Amongst other enlightening aspects, he points out the clear difference between actors and puppets. An actor tries to fake a character. He tries to become somebody he is not. Ergo an actor’s success is based on his capability to deceive the viewer. A puppet on the other hand is the character. It is what it is and the stories emerge from within the puppet.

It makes all perfect sense to me.

I have created twenty-six characters to date and so far have only one character I really dislike. This is Twoface.  She looks straight at you and smiles. Superficially she looks like a pleasant enough person, very non-committal though. Her response to what you say is usually: “Ah, yes” or “Really” or “Indeed.” But you know exactly she doesn’t give a toss about anything. Even worse, when you turn her around, she has a second face rolling her eyes and it is very clear she believes everybody (except for herself) is a tosser.

I haven’t incorporated her in any stories yet, but I think she will become the boss. I will only use her if absolutely necessary.

two_face roling eyesNow that I look at her second face and know that she is the boss, I feel slightly sorry for her. She must be in middle management and feels a bit of pressure from higher up. While she rolls her eyes, she does look a bit scared. But still I thoroughly dislike her behavior and I will stay clear of her as much as possible.