Yesterday was my 30th birthday. I think it’s about time I post this…

This is the post where I explain the new puppet designs that I’ll be selling from now on. Here I discuss: the background; the new materials; where I’ve been; where I’m going; the new characters; the new design; what’s coming.

First thing’s first: whatever new direction PIM is going in, School of Puppetry most certainly is not. It’s interesting, since I decided to split the two in half, I have no trouble mentally separating any artistic vision for them. And trust me, they will be quite different. SOP will never discuss certain issues - which I’ll get to in a moment -  and will never ever contain my personal opinions on non-puppetry related subjects. (My opinion on replicas however, and similar subjects, may come up from time to time ) This is discussed a bit more below about how it relates to SOP, but I tipped my hat a few days ago at how these upcoming changes may put some people off; I knew a softening of the ground had to happen.

The change

I’ve been thinking and planning this for a whole year. Since splitting the site into two different services - tutorials and patterns vs shadow puppet products - I’ve been wondering what to do with the shadow puppet side of things. It was clear that I could make great looking shadow puppets, but found it hard to make a lot of sales. To date I think about 20 puppets have left my hands, with one commission. I had an inkling something had to change for a while: but what?

A fortuitous meet-up with a group of Melbourne crafters took me to a designer craft market where I was immediately upset. I looked around at all these fabulous items and thought to myself: my shadow puppets are crap. Sure they can pass muster in the puppetry scene (barely), but in order to really make any money from it, I’m going to have to get out there to markets. And I just couldn’t see myself making any money with what I had for sale at the time.

So I decided to reinvent everything.

The materials

The first thing I decided was to up the ante with the materials I was using. Before I was using laminated cardboard: now I will use recycleable sturdy polypropylene. The look is far cleaner and more professional, whilst retaining durability, flexibility and great designs. More importantly, I can now do puppets at any size I want, instead of relying on A4 which is pretty pathetic sizing when you think about it. (The new puppets will be 67.5cm or 26.6 inches in height) I wanted a better way of attaching rods, but found that sometimes what you’ve already got is the best you can do. I swapped out string joints and will only use brass fasteners (brads) from now on. Looking back on it, what I was doing before was an interesting use of materials, but not entirely anything that would be considered worthy of paying for. I was happy with my methods and materials; but now I see them as being a small part of the learning curve.

The beginning of the end

Most of what I’ve done since then is more of a mental rediscovery than a physical one. Yes, I’ve spent a lot of the year hunting materials and making lots of prototypes. I still am as I continue to develop the best product possible. But mostly, it’s been a long, tough, reconsideration of how I approach my work and what I’m interested in presenting.

See, as an artist I never really had anything to ’say’. I’ve always been far more fascinated in absurdist theatre (such as Beckett, Sartre or Pirandello) where it’s a bit like an olden day Seinfeld: they spend lots of time saying not much of anything at all. I like the ambiguities of life, and the realm of postmodernism where perception is reality. A lot of human life is about the ambiguities, as can be seen in any romcom where the laugh of the day is a misunderstanding between the protaganist and their friend/lover/whoever. There is something about the complexities of ambiguities that appeals to me.

This is all well and good when you’re writing plays, but when you’re a puppet maker you have to come up with a character. A motivation or emotion; not a plotline or a line of dialogue. (This has been my thinking anyway, but recently it changed) I was creating characters based on little else than a desire to try to build a puppet with a certain movement, something that was a building challenge. It’s even harder when you’re making puppets to sell without having a reason, script, or need, behind it. I was picking characters at random, mainly because I knew they would sell (the mermaid for instance) The more I thought about what characters to produce for this new-look PIM, the more I didn’t know what to do.

When I realised I had to ‘up’ the professionalism of my puppets, it occurred to me that I needed a proper design plan. Something where I had a selection of characters that all had a theme from the outset. Not just a theme, but characters that could actually interact in a play without the script, and even better: across any number of scripts, since they’ll be sold for use in someone else’s play/s. I didn’t like the idea of sticking to the same old characters, nor did I like the idea of choosing new ones at random. So some new characters were needed with a specific theme in mind.

I started to think about what I was interested in presenting as a theme. I spent very little time before coming to an obvious conclusion: I tend not to say anything at all. This goes back to my point about scriptwriting: postmodernist absurdism is a common trait. I grew up the ‘freak’, the girl most people made fun of. I learned quickly at school to hide any and all opinions because I was scared of being laughed at. In the back of my head, I knew this and didn’t care much about it. I don’t care anymore about whether or not someone thinks my choice in music is stupid: it’s not exactly something worth fighting over, nor something worth announcing for the sake of having my opinion heard.

But there are things I want to discuss now. I decided it was about time to ‘Let Bartlet be Bartlet‘. I’m not going to shy away from my opinions, and I’m not going to shy away from these choices just because I think it might lose me sales.

The concept

Over the same time I’ve been involved in puppetry, I’ve also been reading more and more on astronomy, and with that came a broader reading on scepticism and critical thinking. (I started reading up on astronomy due to my hunt for info on myths - the moon hoax - for an idea for a play that never got written; so this is all a bit to do with my love of absurdist theatre in an odd way) It’s no surprise to me that I’m calling myself a sceptic, given my particular interests and willingness to look into the truth of some antics in the entertainment industry here. It’s also less of a surprise to announce I’m an atheist. I’ve never been particularly religious, despite my upbringing, although at one point I would have (and kind of still do) preferred the label of ‘existentialist’.

Yes, both of these are important. I’ll never ever discuss my views on religion here or elsewhere, except to point out a specific issue that’s relevant to my decision below (it’s hardly related at all to my artistic vision, but worth mentioning as it shows my thought process on the upcoming changes).  But in terms of scepticism, and my interest in science topics, I’d like to bring them more into what I do as a puppeteer.

Something happened about a year ago in another way: I started thinking about what my fellow puppeteers were producing in terms of scripts and ideas. Most of the puppetry I have seen locally has been of the ‘non-realistic’ style, where all-purpose black box theatres are filled with everyday objects that move about. Puppetry for adults has been both realistic and non, from Ronnie Burkett’s complex characters to weird plots that don’t make sense. A lot of puppetry is based in religion, due to the use of puppets in Christian ministries. The more I thought about it, the more I realised just how little discussion there is from puppeteers about scientific or realistic topics. Understandably, puppetry that combines ‘magical’ aspects is often more fun to produce, and why not: with puppetry, your only limit is your imagination. People are more than happy to do a sci-fi show on aliens, but don’t seem to be interested in producing a play about the first dog in space. Just as ‘fantastical’ but actually grounded in reality. I started to wonder why scifi aliens are more interesting than the first dog in space - surely the characters have about the same emotional impact? The storylines about the same excitement? The latter discusses a great topic, which is the humane treatment of animals (tip to the environmentalist content that’s faddish these days); and is also important to the history of human space flight.  And it’s just as exciting. To me, there’s no reason why we can’t produce shows that are just as fun or interesting but still based on real events or likely ones.

But it’s just not happening to the same extent as shows about aliens or monsters. When it comes to children’s theatre - the majority of puppetry is for kids after all - topics seem carved into the following: respect/understanding, the environment, bullying, exploration/imagination and cultural/religious concepts. There is nothing wrong with any of this, but I started to notice just how much imbalance there is between the (over)use of these concepts and the (under)use of other, just-as-interesting science topics.

In looking further afield I thought about all the puppeteers I knew of who had sceptical tendencies, or who were interested in science. Mostly, I noticed that they all liked sci-fi, but few seemed to be producing anything that was more realistic. (Er, not to denigrate sci-fi, I love that genre as much as the next person)

Then I looked at my own work: despite its popularity, I have ended up wondering at the sale of my mermaid shadow puppet. It’s very pretty and all, but I’ve read up on the myth of the mermaid, and to be honest, the ‘real thing‘ is a disgusting visual. More importantly, I ended up asking myself if I really wanted to sell something and unknowingly promote the myth to kids. (Yes, I’ve come around to the realisation that while I design and build for adults, it’s the kids who will end up using the majority of my puppets). If it came with a little info about the history of the myth, that would be one thing, but it doesn’t. Nor was that my aim: I was simply creating a puppet character that I knew would be popular and would sell. How did I know that? It’s one of the many characters that’s often sold by puppeteers, including a rival shadow puppeteer. Wouldn’t it be more interesting and more satisfying to discuss with kids the reality behind a lot of myths - and help teach them to recognise scams when they come along, or get them to discover the (just as interesting and weird) undersea creatures out there?

I started to think about these issues quite a lot, and even mentioned it a few times in discussions on Puppets and Stuff.

Now you might be asking: why the hell is this important at all? Who cares about science or reality-based ideas within puppetry? … It turns out, I do. I had spent a lot of time to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not to bring my own personal philosophies into my design. No one cares what I think, but more importantly, no one should feel as though I’m shoving my ideas down anyone’s throat. And to a certain extent, that’s correct. But all artists have a vision, an expression, or an idea to share. Whether it’s obvious or not, it’s conveyed in their work. And I decided to ‘man up’ and be Bartlet.

As a sceptic, I want to encourage critical thinking, science and the wonder that is the universe; as an artist I want my puppets to be fun and to have different applications. The more I read about amazing stuff (a star with a diamond in its core; the size of the universe; the fact that we can send and receive pics from Mars; the constant discovery of new things; etc), the more I want to see this stuff represented in art and puppetry. It is such a wide and exciting set of subjects ripe for use in puppetry - Galapagos islands and animal puppets anyone? - and yet it’s used so little.

From now on there’ll be a reason for selling a character, and it won’t be because it’ll sell. It’ll be because I have a genuine interest in a particular topic, concept, historical event or person, and it’ll be because I want to advocate more critical thinking in our daily lives. My personal interest in science and scepticism wasn’t enough to tip me over the edge towards making puppets based on these topics. However, when I considered the paucity of discussion/exploration of these things by other puppeteers - and even in most art, let alone theatre itself - it seemed like something I wanted to try to do.

The characters

The introduction of science-based ideas, scepticism and critical thinking that I plan on using amount to no more than finding a scientific topic, person or event, that I find inspiring and using it for a character. For instance, my character Pamela that I’ve been prototyping, is inspired by my favourite female scientist: Dr Pamela Gay. She is one half of the team from Astronomy Cast. I’ve been listening on and off to the podcast for several years now, and find the interview-style discussion of astronomy to be both enlightening and easy to understand; and with many of these scientific advocates, her enthusiasm is infectious. With my new character designs, I wanted to equally represent  male and female scientists, and so, here is one character done and dusted … You see, it’s not all that controversial after all, is it?

And as you can see, the character design - linked above - doesn’t reflect any controversial ideas either (mainly because the design came first, then the character theme). Each puppet will come with a little explanation of why I chose it, but there won’t be anything preachy about any of it and in fact, unless you’re paying attention you probably won’t notice the underlying reason for its use. I like the idea of the designs being subtle enough that people will be encouraged to be curious about the characters and story behind them, and go out to learn more. I’m not interested in changing minds or being aggressive, I’m interested in celebrating wonderful and interesting discoveries and encouraging genuine discussion.

As it happens, many of the characters I’ve decided on are just as ‘dull’ and as ‘popular’ as always: one of my other designs is a beagle, which represents Charles Darwin and his work. There will be themes (animals, humans, etc) and I’m thinking that if you buy the whole theme as a set, it will come with a specially written science-based (non preachy) script.

The design

Now after reading all of this, you may be wondering what the heck the puppets are going to look like. And if you’ve been reading my previous posts, you are probably extremely confused. Why? Because I’ve been posting prototypes of the new design, and my example puppet doesn’t at all look science-based. It is, and it isn’t.

Rethinking the aesthetics of the puppet was different to rethinking the theme. As explained above, the puppet is based on a female astronomer. Obviously, the puppet looks nothing like a real person. This is partially because the new design (the way the puppet looks) came before the new concept (science-based), and partially because I think if I try to be realistic, everything will be shot to hell. I really like the fact that it’s not realistic, because it makes the underlying promotion of science topics more fun: and fun is what it’s all about at the end of the day. Science is fun too, so making everything realistic just drops the fun right out of it.

I think this has more to do with marketability than anything else: realistic designs are all well and good, but pretty boring. Other shadow puppeteers have relatively realistic silhouettes, and I’ve already been there and done that (ignoring fable-like characters like mermaids, the rest have been realistic in form). I wanted a unique look, something that was easily recognisable as a PIM creation. More than that, I think the theme itself makes the puppets seem dull or boring to some people. You can make a nice beagle and say it’s about advocating a good understanding of evolution,  biology and history on a whole; but that doesn’t make you want to buy it.

The good thing about the aesthetics is that it’s more likely to win friends than create enemies.

… But that’s all a bunch of rationalisation. The truth is, I just like the design this way. The sceptic in me thinks that it’s a bit of bad artistry to have real animals/people/whatever and yet not make them look realistic. And the artist in me knows that a certain amount of artistic licence is often necessary (ie. there’s no sound in space, but cinematographers use it anyway to create a sense of atmosphere; which I agree with. It’s necessary for the audience to connect emotionally with the film). I think it’s even partially warranted with puppets, since they’ll never be truly realistic anyway - especially shadow puppets - but again it’s mainly staying this way ‘just because’.

Oh, and if you’re wondering about the ‘hole in the head’ in the signature design: yep, that’s aesthetic first, theme second. It also allows me to use a specially-designed prop system, whereby characters ’speak’ by having small shadow props appear in the hollow area. Imagine a little thought-cloud with a word or symbol and you’ve got the basic idea. Again, this was more aesthetic/practicality first, theme second. But after a while of thinking about all this stuff, a lightbulb went off and I realised that it perfectly fits the theme.

You see, in the sceptical community, there’s a saying: “Be open minded. But not so much your brain falls out". It’s supposed to encourage people to change their minds, but only so long as there’s a good reason to do so, like in the face of new evidence. It’s also supposed to discourage people from accepting any old idea that comes along just because it sounds nice. So the new design reflects this concept, even if it was never intentional. Each character will be a representation of scepticism and open-mindedness!

The satisfaction

Even without having the puppets on show and available yet, I am already happy with how things are going. Although I’m nervous about openly discussing subjects I’d simply keep to myself, I find that the introduction of science-based ideas and thoughts are just as enjoyable as making fantastical creatures. In fact, my super-secret project is specifically created to incorporate a design methodology that is entirely based in science. It’s not the character that makes it so, but the way in which the puppet is made. (That’s the only clue you get ) I’ve been working on developing it, and hopefully it will be fun, cool and science-y all at once!

And if you’re wondering how well I’ll be able to keep PIM from influencing on SOP: I’m already doing it. While you may only be hearing about this stuff now, I’ve been thinking and acting on all these ideas for roughly a year. PIM developments are certainly delaying my ability to continue migrating content, or writing new content, but that’s nowhere near the same as changing editorial policy on what gets written about and in what manner. SOP will continue to be neutral, and surprisingly, I’ll probably continue making fantastical and non-science based characters for any patterns that come along. Some may call that cognitive dissonance; I’ll call it a way to keep one side of my business free to inspire people about how puppetry has no limitations, which is one of the aims of the site anyway.

What’s next?

As my first character has been fully created, I will be spending the next few weeks building a bunch for sale; designing and making packaging to go along with it; doing photos and video for advertisements; and working on that super-secret project. You’ll start to see some posts appear about the project itself, as I’ll be working my way through a book that I’ll be using to adapt for the script. I’m going to start a ‘reading corner’, where I will be posting my thoughts as I read each chapter. The text comes from part of Galileo’s writings in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. It’s a piece I’ve loved for years and is ideal for adaptation into a puppetry script.

… The idea that I should leave my own viewpoints on other subjects out of my art has been a long-standing one. It’s still not something I feel quite comfortable letting go of. When I was thinking all of this through, I remembered something: one of the best things I was ever taught in English class at school was to write something you’d be interested in reading. That if there was something missing from a genre, to be brave and add it yourself. So in that same vein, that’s what I’m doing. If those other forms of puppetry, or art, or themes don’t interest me, then I’ll add the ones that do.

Let Bartlet be Bartlet.

Those of you who have been following the story of Puppets in Melbourne over the past year and a half will know that I’ve been splitting my site in two: putting shadow puppet content on the original PIM site, and tutorials and non-shadow puppet stuff on the new School of Puppetry site. Those who’ve been following the news of the last 6 months or so will have some idea that new shadow puppet products will be forthcoming, but more than that will represent a huge shift in how I present my work. I’ve been hinting at a deeper shift than is immediately obvious. Over the coming days, weeks and months as I prepare to reveal the first new shadow puppet and the inner workings of my presentation at the upcoming Summit, I will be explaining this shift in further detail.

However, before I launch into explanations of where it’s all going, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight something which may get lost in the mix:

Puppets in Melbourne once would never stray far from anything puppetry, outside of discussion of my personal experiences or daily activities. Even then, it would remain somewhat puppetry related. Much of the upcoming changes will require discussion of many topics outside of puppetry, as they are the basis for many of my new shadow puppet characters. Some people may find this interesting and continue reading, others may not. Some may find it too unrelated to the art of puppetry, some may not. Some may find it even challenges their ideas about the world around them, some may not.

More than that, most people I suspect are subscribed readers purely because of the content for School of Puppetry, and the free information contained therein. In which case, the experimentation of shadow puppetry may be somewhat interesting; but the upcoming accompanying commentary on other topics will undoubtedly lose me those who just want free puppetry info.

Do not panic: Puppets in Melbourne will always provide a combined RSS/subscription whereby you get updates from both sites. But from now on, subscribers will see a link (at the bottom of each post in your RSS subscriber or similar reader) which will allow you to subscribe to School-of-Puppetry-updates-only, if you prefer. If you find that any of the new PIM content is not to your liking - although I hope you all read the first few posts and make up your minds from there - then feel free to update your subscriptions. To begin with this SOP-only subscription won’t be openly advertised outside of the link for current subscribers. (One can always simply subscribe to the SOP twitter or Facebook page, which doesn’t include PIM updates anyway and has the added advantage of including backdated migrations of content which don’t appear in RSS feeds)

Just so you know what’s coming, here’s a little preview: an artist’s philosophical statement where I explain the reasoning behind the new designs; a step-by-step trip through researching and developing my presentation at the Summit (see link above); finalisation and advertisement of the first new shadow puppet; learning the art of tambour embroidery which is mainly just me trying something new; research and development for more shadow puppets and other related products; and yes, the introduction of discussion of science and other non-puppetry topics which will relate to my new works. It won’t be aggressive discussion, but explorative…. so please just give it a shot before changing over to the new subscription.

If you’re completely uninterested in giving it a go however, then the SOP only subscription is here.

I previously mentioned that I had submitted myself for the upcoming 4th National Puppetry & Animatronics Summit, taking place here in Melbourne (Australia) in July. Yesterday I received news that one of my proposals was accepted!

So this year I’ll miss two big festivals (UNIMA 2012 and the Tarrengower Puppet Festival), but I’ll be able to go to a least one event - it’ll be 3 years between the Summit and my last festival attendance. Ever since the Summit was announced I was keen to attend, and though I didn’t think I’d have the funds, an early birthday present has allowed me to plan for it anyway.

Now you may be asking, “what’s this proposal you sent in?” Sadly, it is a super-secret project. It’s entirely dependent on getting some custom materials, so I don’t even know if I’d be ready in time if they’re not available. Suffice to say it’s highly experimental but should allow me to showcase some of the new Puppets in Melbourne designs that I’ve been working on. … And no, it’s nothing that’s been posted here on the blog before.

The proposal was accepted for a work-in-progress ‘clinic’, designed to allow you to present puppetry for criticism and improvement. Although I’m not happy performing myself, it’s something that I’ll have to put up with in order to receive feedback on a specific and unique design idea. I’ve also been informed that an American puppeteer will be on hand for provision of feedback; which makes two notable overseas people who will be special guests. The whole thing is quite exciting and I’m really looking forward to it now - even if I’m not interested in criticism as a performer, I do look forward to another great opportunity to be amongst my peers.

I already have a script idea sorted, and have begun research for it, some of which I’ll likely reveal on the blog in the future: it’s the puppet design which is super-secret, not the performance itself. As there is four months between now and the Summit, it shouldn’t impact too much in continuing progress of the other puppet designs. I’m not saying it won’t be a tight squeeze, but since the submission to the Summit doesn’t have to be polished, it’s ok - nay, necessary - that not everything is finished to perfection.

Since I will be in attendance at the Summit, I thought I would do my festival habit and ‘live blog’ the whole thing. Especially since it’ll be in my home town, making it easier to get internet/computer access. The full program hasn’t been released yet, but when it is I’ll be able to decide on an itinerary which will be used as a reference for the liveblogging.

You’ll remember last week when I posted “delays are no fun“; I’d gotten stuck on designing the new character for Puppets in Melbourne. Fortunately, I’ve found a decent solution.

Where I left off I was complaining that I couldn’t make the puppet at a decent size witout the head becoming floppy. I decided to try adding a clear plastic layer to the back of the head, which connects at the neck and top of head. Adding a couple of extra brads to the side prevents the clear layer bending away from the head layer when the puppet is reversed. At first I didn’t like this solution, concerned about added weight and the aesthetics in adding extra brads. However, I find that the weight is only marginally heavier (slightly noticeable but only to someone who would be doing comparison tests) and the brads don’t distract at all.

This was a suggestion from Puppets and Stuff, where I often ask advice: but I only tried it because I forgot and returned to an idea I had initially. With these characters, instead of having mouths that are hinged, they will be used in combination with a series of props. “Dialogue” props if you will. The props will be in the shape of symbols or cut-out words, which you can have appear inside the hole of the head. (See here for pics of the puppet for a better understanding) However, the props will work best if they attach to something temporarily, since the head is hollow. Hence the clear layer that I’ve now installed.

As this easily solves two problems in one go, I am finally ready to start making these for real. I have put in an order for more materials - having only purchased enough for testing purposes and literally having none left - which will get me a total of 56 puppets in all. I’ll be making different coloured versions, hence the huge number.

While I’m waiting for that batch to arrive, I’ll be finalising one small detail, which involves whether or not I want more articulation on the character design. I’ve tried several different versions, and am satisfied with the original, but may want one more articulation (adding a wrist to one arm). This is entirely dependent on something else:

Recently on P&S we had a discussion on how to write a script. It was very instructive for me because I’ve always had it stuck in my head that there was some sort of magical method of writing for puppets that was different from ‘normal’ playwrighting. This idea has been completely stripped away now, especially because I’d been looking at it from a performer’s POV. When people talk about puppetry, they generally talk about writing dialogue or scripts as a performer. They talk about how you just need to get the puppet and muck around a bit, and voila, a character is born. However, when you’re like me and hate performing, and have been building puppets without any need (that is, without a show or script or performance need) it’s hard to have some sort of character in mind. One can imagine the aesthetics, and imagine the movement; but one can’t easily predict what the puppet will need to do or how it sounds or looks on stage.

The suggestion was an obvious one: write for puppets however you feel comfortable, there’s no magic answer. However, the salient point was that if I’m not a performer I should consider writing a script first, then developing the puppet design: even if I never plan on performing the script itself.

For me, this opens my eyes to how I need to change my building and design process. For the ‘Pamela’ character - the one pictured in the link above - I have designed first which limits my abilities to know what the design should accomplish, what movements it should be able to make. From now on, I will be writing a short script first; based on the character idea. This will allow me to ensure the puppet is truly useable, and I will likely make available the script on a creative commons basis. At the very least, a script will also provide me with a good way of publicising the puppets on Youtube as my previous advert/videos have been woefully lacking in a decent plot.

This returns me to my point: finalising the articulation for this character will have to wait until I have completed a short script from which I can work.

So in sum… I have ordered the materials and will build new puppets asap. I am working on developing a short script to use to finalise the design and/or use as advertising. I am looking into getting custom packaging for the puppets, along with clearing some space for storage. I will be finalising costs (initial costings suggest the materials will be cheap per/puppet but I haven’t accounted for labour yet). And with any luck something new will be available very very soon.