Cariad: The travelling twins [first draft]

Cariad proposed an experiment to investigate the role of the gaze when dealing with a duplicated body, made from the combination of performer and puppet-object.

Everyone had to pick among a number of given puppets, puppet parts and materials, and then attach (or tie) it to their bodies.

Cariad: “It has to have some sort of form (a figure)”.

Everybody would position themselves at the end of the room where the Viewpoints exercise began and, with the start of the music, travel through the straight imaginary line ahead seeking to portray separate consciousness and agency to both parts of the composite body. This would be done while doing the task of travelling down the imaginary line.

There´s a relationship between the thing and the player, who is supposed to investigate where does the gaze go when such relationship is acquired.

COMMENT: Something must be pointed out about the structure of the command, for it suggests the search for a performing insight before the understanding of the gaze´s role. It comes from the acknowledgement that there are some complex and semiconscious strategies a performer would use to achieve a certain goal, whose efficiency would be best triggered by simply stating a goal which stimulates more imagination than technical awareness (“first try to tell the story of these two beings, and only then try to understand the gaze´s role”). This command also tries to divert the focus a bit away from the study of gaze, trying not to lay excessive emphasis which would lead the participants wrongly.

The complexity of the task, though, made it very difficult for the participants to bring to conscience these two stages of the investigation. The search for the relation-manipulation with the object seemed an intense enough task. Guess this exercise should be accompanied by careful observation, the use of video footage, or even a sense of development through more than one session. But it came out as an intense and useful resource to discuss and understand the use of gaze in modern puppetry.

After the first minutes of experiment, Cariad suggested that there should be no disagreement between the two counterparts, stating that “both want to get to the same place”. This command came from the fact that many players used the resource of raising disagreement to show difference. It not only revealed itself as an “easy way”, but also engaged some participants into scenic routines that diverted from the main purpose of the experiment, which was to explore the double agency rather than look for comic situations.

So, the participants should still be travelling towards the same destination, but split into two different consciences (“when you reach the end of the room, go back and start over”).

The first round of observation of the experiment raised a couple of questions that shall be preliminary posed. It must be noted that due to the positioning of the camera it was only possible to record the experiments conducted by Mario and Marie. Both Chusi and Valeria were out of the camera range. Cariad was engaged in observing and conducting the experiment.

a)      It seems to be easier to understand the dissociation between performer and object the easier it is to distinguish and recognize the puppet´s SHAPE. Although it may not to be mandatory, I guess it is fair to say that shape may be the primary feature for distinguishing between the two stances. A human (or animal)-like puppet is said to provoke this dissociation feeling faster and easier than other types of playing materials. It must be pointed out that we are dealing with a matter for which SHAPE and MATERIALITY are of essence;

b)     As we move further from the figurative portrayals of human and animal, the observer tends to cling to the role played by the FOCAL SOURCE of the object. The more functional this focal source is, more likely we are to perceive an anthropomorphic quality of the being, or to recognize its agency. Anyway, the mere shape of a possible focal point (eyes, head, a head-like part, an upper edge) can be enough to suggest a potential consciousness;

c)      It does not mean that it can´t be done with abstract forms or raw material, but it becomes quite harder for the player to suggest it, for it is needed to imbue the object with a determined quality of MOVEMENT. A movement able to portray agency must have three qualities: TENSION, a certain degree of tonus and resistance; INTENT, which is the belonging to a given context and a display of perception-reaction; and ORIGIN, the impression that it is originated from within the material, and not by the performer-manipulator;

d)     BUT WHAT ABOUT GAZE? The hypothesis is that the gaze follows the structure of visual perception, in a way it is both dynamic and builds up images from fragments of visual information. It has different approaches on three different elements of the performance, which are: the object-puppet, the performance artist and the audience. It “fills the gaps” of the information on stage. Much more about it must be discussed.

FINAL DESCRIPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS TO BE POSTED

Chusi: The Viewpoints

The dynamics proposed by Chusi was directly taken from Bogart and Landau´s Viewpoints. The fact that the sequence of experiments were already taken from a previous work system, it created a sense of continuity and also allowed the group to relate its flow and objectives for puppetry in a rather clear way.

It is a sequence of experiments quite familiar to anyone who had ever been in touch with the VPs, as briefly as it could be. Here follow the exercises, combines with some comments:

PART 1: The walks

      a)     It was asked the group to walk around the room, with a brief stop to adjust spinal positioning (erect, though relaxed), direction of the eye (straight). NOTE: The whole group (Cariad, Marie, Mario and Valeria) was engaged on the exercise, with Chusi orienting from outside.

       b)     While walking in the room, anyone could stop and resume the walk when and as they want;

     c)     Next, the group was told to explore different walk speeds by themselves (without being influenced by anyone else);

     d)     The exploratory walk could incorporate both change of continuity and speed, as before, but now everyone should be aware of the negative space, or: the matter of the surrounding space and the way the room is filled;

      e)     Now everyone should try, as they walk, to be aware of everything happening in the room: how far one is from a wall, who is passing behind you, where is everybody and what are they doing;

     f)      Now, as everybody walks, they should try from time to time to follow someone, by either copying or reacting to the other´s walk;

      g)     Whenever anyone crosses my way I must change the intention or the way I walk;

      h)     Now try to walk as if you were in a bubble; if no one could affect or be affected by the actions of the other.

The exercise deals with the effect caused by other people´s actions and reactions. Deals with the permeability of actions and the way people respond to the environment. At first is created a walking repertoire (a, b & c) and then, through stages d & e, an awareness of the surroundings is gradually brought to conscience, until it is assumed in stages f & g. Stage h (in a bubble) is a display of how difficult it is to go back – or to merely leave – to a stage of unawareness of the surroundings – to a non-responsive stage.

In a brief talk after this experience the group agreed that it is hard to simply “be in a bubble”, but also that something happened differently than when reacting to the group was mandatory.

ABOUT GAZE: It became quite clear that we tend to be responsive to the environment, even when we do not engage our eyes on this perceptive task. This responsiveness is something we can´t help, and it is also a perceptive hint of something´s independent life. More about it will be addressed below.

PART 2: Walking the line

The group was put side by side at one end of the room. From a certain moment, anyone could do the following movements: move ahead, move back, jump, lie down.

     a)     The group perform the movements by their own, without any guidance from any member of the group. Anyone can begin the exercise when want, and may combine his movement in a desired fashion;

      b)     All movement must be made in relation to another person. “Someone else” would decide when to start and all changes and decisions on movements must be done as a “response” to someone else.

The first difference noticed between parts a and b of the exercises concerned timing. There were more pauses. The movements took longer to start and there were moments when nobody moved followed by blasts of movement. But I guess that the main alteration concerned tension and tonus. The pauses were filled with anticipation and the movement relationship tended to portray some kind of a dramatic tonus.

This brief experiment, though it only “scratches the surface” of possible collaborations between Viewpoints and Composition for puppetry training (as most organized training systems can), it seems to deal with a main subject, which is the one concerning the ability for perception-reaction as a fundamental index to independent life.

The training for perception and reaction from environmental stimuli, that is also present in other training systems, such as the neutral mask, approaches the matter of gaze in at least two different directions:

a) from the puppet: the gaze is close to the perceptive-reactive apparatus that moves in both ways of perceiving the outside world and portraying the impression of inner existence to the audience.

b) from the puppeteer: awareness as specific understanding of gaze (Bogart uses the sense of hearing instead of sight, as she presents the “Extraodinary Listening”), talks about an overresponsive state, in which matters of space, material and time shapes the reactions and meanings to the performing actions.

This must be addressed in more depth.

An interesting discussion to be conducted should be the fact that through gaze it is possible to perceive autonomous life, at the same time that gaze is one of the main perceptive bonds an entity stablishes with its surroundings. The impression of autonomy is, in a way, related to the responsiveness to the surroundings that determine the actions one may produce. The more a character is bound to what it reacts to, the more it displays autonomy.

Chatting about gaze and definitions

IMPORTANT: None of the quotelike parts in this post are literal. They are condensations and interpretations of the actual lines, which can be found in the link to the footage of the meeting, previously posted.

After these two first experiments, the group gathered for a brief discussion.

Mario mentioned the importance of the game because it demonstrates and practices the principle of focus of the puppet.

Cariad said that the experience has a more metaphoric meaning to her, once it is somehow related to the space between the performer and the material, and about building inseparable bonds between them at the point one could never exist without the other.

Then she addressed more specifically the matter of gaze, asked: 1) how could we have a focus difused gaze? Some kind of environmental gaze, which is more difused, but capable of drawing attention at the same time (could it have anything to do with the VP´s soft focus?); 2) When does the internal gaze becomes the external gaze?

About it could be argued that an internal gaze concerns to the attentions and feelings towards the acting-manipulating jog, and the external gaze is the result of portraying a lifelike performance that arises from this commitment.

Chusi asked if for this exercise (the rope) the created puppet had to portray a recognizable body structure. A resposta é não, mas Cariad adiciona:

You can explore materials to the end of the world, and the audience might find it really boring, and the you go like this (picks up the rope in way it portrays a body and a head), and the audience clicks. The audience wants to make sense out of it. But it´s kind of a challenge because it limits us, because coming up with this kind of form is something of a “quick solution”.

Marie argues that sometimes it could be harder to make the audience believe in the “life” of the puppet according to its shapes and ways of blending with the performers body. Cariad says it´s ok, and that this belief may not be mandatory. She mentioned the work of a dancer called [Mikkel Bastelot] (Note: I haven´t found any reference of him, or his precise name), who mixes his performance with materials without the need to suggest independent life.

But then: how do we define puppetry?

Mario: whenever I exercise over this question I end up thinking what is the point of trying to do so.

Cariad: We are coming to a point in which puppetry is belief. It may have something to do with ritualistic behavior of religious images and statues.

Marie mentioned a show she saw in which the actors didn´t relate to the puppet-object characters in way to insert them in the action of more than a kind of demonstrative way. Mario mentioned a show he saw in which the puppet characters that shared the stage with the one actor were treated by him in such an intense way their presence could be felt by the audience, although there was no illusion of independent life shown through their looks or their movement.

Maybe it has something to do with gaze…

Training session 06 july 2017 - Part 1

The session was recorded. The video was then organizedd, barely edited, and uploaded to a Youtube channel:
Session videos

The session was organized so that each one of the researchers involved should come up with one practical experiment or exercise suggestion. After short deliberation, it was decided that the order should be Mario, Marie, Chusi and Cariad. Valeria would not conduct any proposal for she oversaw the video recording. Now follows the descriptions of the dynamics, followed by a few observations:

a) Mario: The invisible ball

Organized in a circle, the participants played of throwing a tennis ball to each other. It was important to stablish eye contact between players who were throwing and receiving the ball, and try not to let it fall. After some time, the ball is removed, and the participants proceed with the game, this time imagining the ball while doing the same things as before. The goal here is to make the whole group to imagine the same ball, and to “put it in space”, by both body and gaze control.

What´s gaze got to do with it?

This is a basic theatre game, and explores the ability to invoke the existence of something through both body and gaze reactions. “Put something in space”, as would Viola Spolin say, is the result of imagining, reacting to this imagination, and acting over it, so it can be communicated to the others.

One of the basic issues regarding this game is the training of the ability of building an imaginary situation that could be shared by both the artist collective and the audience. And it can have many directions: the artists´ engagement can lead the audience to be touched by the make-believe, at the same time that the audience´s engagement produces (is made by) the perceptive completion of the incomplete world displayed on stage.

b) Marie: The Ropes

Was shown to everyone in the group some ropes, in different sizes. Each one had to choose a piece and experiment animating it for a while, with the aid of music. After a while experimenting alone and in relation with the others, each one had a time alone to display a quick improvised scene with their findings.

This work is a classical contact with the work of the puppeteer, and acts on basic principles for animating puppets, but can also generate a fine experiment on the bodies of puppets, of viable integrative games between materials and the performer´s body. It can even go as further as to question the presence of a puppet´s body in animation performances.

So, it can be said that the game may reveal at least two different levels of approach, being the first, more evident, an exercise in which players can, first, quickly build a functional puppet made from basic material (the game has been tested not only with ropes, but also with paper, cloth, random objects, pieces of clothing, and more). Second, the players get in touch with, and train, the structural principles of level, axis and focus. These principles were already explained in other places, for they are important departure points to understand and practice puppetry as portraying objects as things that are imagined having autonomous life, even if does not resemble anything we ever met. This level holds some importance to this study, for it deals with the concept of focus, that in many cases is related to the simulation of sight on the puppet. The focus is not only the point from which the puppet perceives things, but mostly the place that originates its reactions. It shows the relation of the puppet with the world exterior to it, but also portrays interior life.

The following deeper layer concerning this game discusses the need to build something close to a puppet (in this case, something resembling human or animal in shape, that has an imagined autonomous life, that acts in a theatrical situation). Artistic (theatrical-dramatic) exploration with the materials may also lead to some interesting situations in which dramatic relations between performer and material can be potent and tense, but without having the need to build up a puppet-like figure in advance. This approach, unorthodox as it is, needs the aid of more examples to be properly put and studied. And I guess I´ll manage to come up with a few throughout this research.

About gaze: this deeper approach leaves some interesting thoughts on the matter, being the first wondering that such dramatic situations made with materials usually may employ manipulation dynamics different from the traditional mediums of string, rod and glove, leaving more room for the performer to build the situation through drawing a visual landscape or reacting to stimuli attributed to the material relations.

Preparing our meeting on gaze

For the practical meeting, it was asked to each group participant to propose a game, experiment or dynamics concerning the discussion about the importance of the gaze in puppetry dramaturgy and training.

As an attempt to help the group to come up with the propositions, here follows some questions that could be of some use. The propositons doesn´t need to be related to the questions; these are mere provocations.


1. How can we draw attention away from us by using our own gaze? And how do we take it back? What does it say about the audience´s attention?

2. How could we tell a story with objects and other materials without touching them? How do we make gaze to be of more, or at least same, importance as speech?

3. How can we give and take the impression of life from an object (puppet) with (both puppet´s and puppeteer´s) gaze?

4. What does the absence of eye contact between puppet and puppeteer may tell us?

5. How can we be at different times and spaces by using gaze?

The Post Office, by Rabindranath Tagore (2012). UFU Theater Course

Focus as a storytelling technique

I think we should proceed discussing the gaze as a dramaturgic device, since last post touched the subject in its final lines. Maybe a fine way to start could be quoting (in its entirety) Patrice Pavis´ Dictionary of Theatre definition of Focalization:

                                                                                                                                                              

Stress placed by the author on an action according to a particular point of view, in order to underscore its relevance. This essentially epic device (GENETTE 19722; BERGEZ, GÉRARD and ROBRIEUX 1994) also applies to theatre, as the playwright, theoretically absent from the dramatic universe, actually intervenes in the development of the conflicts and individualization of the main characters, subordinating the rest to the focalized elements. Focalization influences the character´s point of view and thus, indirectly, those of the playwright and spectators.

On stage, focalization is often achieved by directing a spot-light on a character or place to draw attention to them “in close-up”. The close-up, a technique borrowed from film, is not necessarily done with lightning. It may be produced through the way the actors look at another actor or an element of the stage, or through a foregrouding effect. The enunciation of the staging is what brings out (or “frames”) a particular moment or space in the performance.

PAVIS, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre. Terms, concepts and analysis.

Toronto: Toronto Press, 1998.

As a fact, there is a great number of ways to organize and select the sequence of subjects displayed to build a play's narrative. Since the theatrical arts do not share the accurate techniques of framing and composition seen on photography or video, for it develops in a far more simultaneous environment, such resources are not only useful, but fundamental.

But I guess there are two specific moments in Pavis´ definition that are particularly dear for our discussion, being the first one the mention of focalization as an “essentially epic device” and, quite obviously, the mention of the actor´s look as a resource to produce what he calls “close-up effect”.

Dramaturgy in puppetry is mostly epic (and I write mostly not being able to remember any non-epic example), for the very nature of the puppet performance suggests the existence of a leading counterpart, even if it´s hidden. No matter how well hiddden it is.

When the performer is at the sight of the audience, his look can work as an instance that organizes the narrative, in at least two main ways: to give emphasis to certain subjects on the simultaneous theatrical scene – as well as to suggest a temporal (epic) progression to the shifting of the emphasis, as the focus changes over time; and to perform combinations between different levels of time, space and reality, as the puppeteer can with the control of his gaze, be at the same fictional level as the puppet-character, be at a space and time completely different from the character´s, and also portray that the puppet is other or same to he or she.

Here follows some visual examples for this rather quick explanation:

Cia Truk´s - Vovô (Grandpa). Focus on the puppet as stress on the scene subject.

PeQuod Theater - Sangue Bom (Nice Blood!) and Catibrum Puppet Teater - Homem voa?.
Both puppet and puppeteer share the character´s reaction.

PeQuod Theater - Peer  Gynt (rehearsal). Puppet and puppeteer share the aim of the focus.

El Chón Chón - Juan Romeo & Julieta Maria. Puppeteer acts along with the puppets.

The main point of this post is to emphasize the fact that gaze isn´t just a matter of manipulation technique, but that it´s also a dramaturgic resource, a writing technique.

First thoughts on focus and gaze in puppetry

The issue of directing the eye, or placing focus through gazing, is a major subject on puppetry training, but its debate and practice seems to be mostly placed on the puppet´s gaze, rather than in the puppeteer´s (at least from where I´m looking at it). As a fact, sometimes it´s somehow hard to discuss these two focus sources separately, and the use of this separation remains to be proven.

I would like to start mentioning the gaze as a technique for displaying signs of the puppet´s independent life:

Puppetry uses an understanding of the word focus related to a technical principle spread through rehearsal spaces that means, in general terms, the ability that the puppeteer has to make the puppet show perception and sensibility. Beltrame explains this notion when stating that “the notion of focus can be exemplified in moments which the puppet projects its look towards the object or character it acts with” (Beltrame, 2009, p.292). This is an important quality to the perceptive dynamics of the puppet, once being able to address properly to whom one interacts, or to react properly to whatever calls one´s attention, helps building the imagination of autonomy of the puppet, what allows it to develop onstage interactions (Piragibe, 2011, p. 154. My translation).

The ability to look and pay attention shows in fact more about the existential independence of the puppet than just stating the it can see. There´s far more to be noticed about the object as subject through its focusing ability, as states Paul Piris:

'[...] The eyes give the sensation of the puppet´s subjectivity and visual agency, as opposed to being a subject of visual gaze' (Mrázek, 2005: 35). The puppet is more than a thing that can be seen; it is also an apparent subject that can see. The gaze of the puppet reinforces the separateness from the puppeteer by stressing the dramaturgical presence of the latter. The visible presence of puppeteers on stage does not imply that they have a dramaturgical presence. However, if the puppet looks at tis manipulator and the latter responds to his gaze, the human performer appears as part of the actuality of the puppet (Piris, 2014, p. 37).

Thinking of the puppet as something you can´t simply look at, but something that may be looking back at you comes as the result of a deceiving technique that may redefine its perception dynamics. Not simply an object to be perceived and interpreted, but something that lays between semantic keys.

Sight control, as applied to the puppetry performing artist, can be a tool used to stress the ambiguity between him and the puppet he operates on sight, but can be also a device for a far wider form of manipulation.

Maybe we should be looking at sight (or focus aiming) as a force that gives and shifts meanings on stage. As something that can organize the performance narrative through manipulating emphasis; that can join or separate things in different fictional layers; that can suggest movement or existential independence. The eye is a string-maker (a weaver).

O princípio do Espanto (The principle of awe). Morpheus Tetatro, São Paulo, Brasil.

Meeting 2

Our second meeting took place on the 12th of june, 2017, at the RCSSD´s Puppetry Studio, with the following presents:

Cariad Astles
Chusi Amoros
Marie Klimis
Mario Piragibe
Valéria Gianechini

First, it was discussed topics about objective arrangements, like the booking of a larger workroom for practical studies and the use of a CSSD camera for recording the meetings. It was also agreed that our next presencial meeting would happen on the first week of July, in date and time yet to be confirmed through email exchange.

It was also decided that our next meeting would be a pratical study on the topic (chosen from three provided) of the focalization of the eye (glance, look) as a technique for the puppeteer. In the meantime, the group will conduct a discussion on the matter from the blog, also inviting the eventual reader to participate in the comment session.

As a first attempt to begin the discussion, it was appointed some initial supporting articles, that  are also meant to take part in a larger list of referential works for the studygroup. Group members and readers are invited to appoint any other material that could be of use.



PIRIS, Paul. The co-presence and onthological ambiguity of the puppet. in: BELL, J.; ORENSTEIN, C.; POSNER, D. The Routledge companion to Puppetry and material perfomance. New York: Routledge, 2014. pp. 30-42.

BASS, Eric. Visual Dramaturgy. Some thoughts for puppet theatre-makers. In: BELL, J.; ORENSTEIN, C.; POSNER, D. The Routledge companion to Puppetry and material perfomance . New York: Routledge, 2014. pp. 54-60.

OPHRAT, Hadass. The visual narrative: stage design for puppet theatre. e pur si muove: UNIMA magazine, year 1, no.1. Charleville-Mézières: Institut International de la Marionnette, 2002. pp. 31-3.

BALARDIM, Paulo. Relações de vida e morte no teatro de animação. Porto Alegre: Edição do autor, 2004. BARBA, Eugenio & SAVARESE.

PAVIS, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre. Terms, concepts and analysis. Toronto: Toronto Press, 1998.

Meeting 1

30, may, 2017

RCSSD Puppetry Studio

Present

Chusi Amoros

Cariad Astles

Marie Klimis

Mario Piragibe

Discussion:

In our first meeting, we discussed the creation of the Studygroup, pointing out that it should be a place to welcome different approaches and desires concerning the work of the performer in the context of contemporary puppetry and related arts. It should also be a place for both conceptual discussion and practical work.

A couple of statements and questions that rose from the conversation were:

Cariad:

Being mostly interested in puppeteers; how they work and how they retain and transmit their professional knowledge

Chusi:

Mainly interested in movement;

What is the perfect formula to have a “mover”/ performer with all the skills they need to make explorations with no limits and obstacles?

But also, not only to have a skilled performer but a maker/creator that can improvise and devise.

Learning techniques and creating your authentic expression as an artist.

Mario:

Thinks of Puppetry as a kind of crossroads for mixed performing arts, for it seems that the performer ends up showing a kind of a puppeteer´s approach to materials and space when in a context of mixed performing arts (dance, theatre, performance, material performance)

Understands that there could be a somehow similar approach to puppetry when a performer (in aerials, for instance) is faced with dealing with his own body in sets and dispositions that are different than the usual display of the human body in regular physical conditions (gravity, balance, impulse).

Mentioned some experiments on modern shadow theatre where the possibility of creating body images detached from the gravitational bind to the ground allows to invest in other ways of composition, scale relations and deformations.

Artists and companies mentioned:
Cie. Phillipe Genty

Ilka Schonbein

video: Paysages  Intérieurs (teaser), by Cie. Philippe Genty

As a first stimulus, the group set a list of questions concerning contemporaray puppet training, mainly in art schools and Universities, which are:

1. How do we set principles and strategies for training puppetry as an heterogenous art form? Can it be somehow consensual?

2. What are the true differences and similarities between actors and puppeteers in the contemporary perspective?

3. How to set up a course or workshop aiming for a multicompetent training?

4. Does the words we pick to define and discuss modern puppetry affects the way people develops their training program?

5. Is it possible to train for puppetry without exercising ones' hand skills?

6. Do we start by basic techniques or creative desires? / How does one balance these two motivators in a time constrained process?

7. Do we start by teaching traditional forms or contemporary heterogeneity?