The Puppet Show

The Puppet Show @ ICA
January 18 - March 30, 2008

The ICA opened a show entitled “The Puppet Show,” which is curated through a wide-angle lens to address the question of why do puppets matter now?

Perhaps I would have had a more satisfying experience with the show had I not had the curator’s supposed inquiry embedded in my brain before I went to see “The Puppet Show.” The proposed thesis of the show remained unanswered while it raised new questions regarding the definition of the words “puppet” and “now.” Can anything with strings be a puppet? How strongly tied to the cliché expression (however true) of a “puppet government” is the nature of the contemporary political puppet? Is everything miniature or remotely “controlled” a puppet? How does expanding the definition this broadly help create a distinct dialogue? Even the history is diffused haphazardly in this show, with major omissions and confusing explicitly NON-contemporary work. Even more diffuse still is the translation of puppet into video, which in and of itself is another step removed from the question- why do puppets matter now?

Entering the show I was diverted through a Muetter Museum style display of puppet paraphernalia that is described as the discrete structure dubbed “Puppet Storage,” featuring a historic collection. This collection was displayed like an elementary history book that can sum up 200 years of history in a brief chapter. It confirms its existence yet lacks the proper space and exploration to give the relics respect.

Entering the main exhibit you start to calculate the amount of time you are able to watch per video piece as though your time were tokens to be spent wisely. Do I spend more time with the tested and familiar Paul McCarthy, William Kentridge, Bruce Nauman, Dennis Oppenheim, Louise Bourgeois, Christian Jankowski, Mike Kelley, Laurie Simmons, Anne Chu, Doug Skinner, Michael Smith, Kiki Smith, Survival Research Laboratory, Handspring Puppet Company, Charlie White, and Kara Walker or do I look at a new animation by the Swedish artist Nathalie Djurberg and work by Guy Ben-Ner?

I would normally not criticize a show in Philadelphia with such a strong cast, but I wonder if the artists were picked first and then puppets just became the thin string that connected everyone. While much of the indivdual work was strong and interesting on its own, the failure of the show falls directly on the curators’ choice to answer the question of why do puppets matter with so many thinly relevant video works. To include approximately 16 dramatically different videos makes me question the curators’ self-induced definition of puppets. Video's very nature is a choreographed representation of constructed realities. So to include video works as the crutch of a puppet show makes the viewer assume that very structure of video production is a puppet show. The actor becomes the puppet and the director / editor is the puppeteer. Why Paul McCarthy’s video and not clips of the Swedish Chef or Sloth from the Goonies, which included facial prosthetics. Why Survival Research Lab- does a remote controlled object now constitute a puppet?

How can you have a show about Puppets and not have artists like Jan Svankmeyer, the Brothers Quay or more importantly, anything that Shari Lewis (Lamb Chop), Velma Wayne Dawson, Jim Henson, “Winchell and Mahoney”, Mr. Rogers, or Faz Fazakas touched?

I would also like to point out that the curator’s own interest includes the adverb now that defines a moment in time, so to not address the technical nemesis of puppets in video being the use of CGI. Puppets still represent the real, but can’t compete with the physical restraints of a real camera’s speed and axial movements. A famous example of this is the 1970’s Star Wars with puppets and models vs. the newest Star Wars with CGI. Arguably, most people preferred the former. This could be because the technology is still transparent, and thus “fake” while the puppet characters, though imaginary were quite “real” in their presence.
This is a conversation someone could have if one is looking at the current relevance of puppet oriented video work. Puppets are objects, so to also not include live puppet work (puppet theatre) ignores the heart of what puppets represent.

As I write this I don’t wonder why do Puppets matter now, but whether the curators know what a puppet is and/or actually care?

[Tim Belknap is an adjunct professor at Tyler School of Art, as well as an artist who lives and works in Philadelphia (and, occasionally, makes robots-or puppets?). Amy Day is a graduate student at the Art Institute in Chicago]



Bookmark to Del.icio.us

Notes On The Puppet Show

The Puppet Show @ ICA
January 18 - March 30, 2008

Again the spatial quality of sound has performed profoundly at the ICA with the Puppet Show. It is another collection of artists, many well known, and some seemingly appealing to a small but ever growing party crowd. Applause could be heard in some of the pieces, anguish of performers in others, straining their feelings through filters of fiction and the real. And some pieces hung elegantly in the light while screaming televisions could not cause me to blink.

The show kept me in the room for at least a couple of hours. The space at the ICA led me from one to the other but without having to use one of their maps.

The front room was an accessory to the audacity around the main room. I have to say it was a bit like a chicken-coop in there. A little stuffy, feeding me classic howdy-doody, Pee-Wee Herman, and the beloved Phil Hartman as Captain Karl. On the shelves lay seeming relics of puppet history. What I would come to realize is that this room was meant to be representative as a storage space. And after I read that it made a little more sense, though I’m not so sure I agree that it was a backstage kind of thing. It was a little more macabre. It was more so a mortuary of characters. Like the hard rock café in a sense.

Within the main room was a buzzing, ackkking, noise that was, put best by a friend, something that was not quite getting to him yet. A collection of videos playing all at once at very high volume. A chaos that I wasn’t sure I would get over. Soon I learned to tune things out when I needed to, and to let works play with each other. Simple acoustics were an interesting part of the show. Televisions inside of crates to tunnel the sound directly toward an on-lookers bench. It works. The boxes are staggered, and the volume of sound is still able to peak and valley without completely overwhelming the surrounding performances.

The white floor area in the main gallery had a much different feel. A giant white platform, elegant fabric and plaster works, resembling puppets, kind of. The show was a good reason to bring these pieces together. They weren’t following the same line as most of the other installations, but they were nicely tethered to Kentridge’s animations and prints. They were all a bit of a breather from the sound circus. The stage they were set on was a giant white pedestal. The fabric, plaster, and natural materials glow in their own space on the white floor.

I did pass through the second floor; my mind couldn’t make it past the ground level. I had exhausted myself for the day.

Though there was the ever-present hierarchy of names at the collective show by the ICA, I still looked at what interested me. It’s not to say that I look at a gallery experience as pure entertainment, but this show’s wavering emotion kept me looking and listening. It took me a long time to get my fill, and I would still like to revisit.

[Ron Greenwalt is an artist living and working in Philadelphia.]

Pieces of the Puppet Show

The Puppet Show @ ICA
January 18 - March 30, 2008

This month, as well as the following month, is the start for a new year as well as a new season for the ICA. Their previous exhibition Ensemble was a huge success in terms of the mammoth nature of the artists presented as well as the curatorial endeavors of Christian Marclay. Regardless of any impressions of the show, it boosted Philadelphia a notch up on the contemporary merit system. Allow me to preface this review by saying that I had some expectations, both in terms of the transformation of the ICA as well as the caliber of the show as a whole. I was fairly eager to see what they had to offer this month.

As I stepped into The Puppet Show I gave up my initial presumptions and I let the show do the talking. I was initially taken to a third world offering by the artist Terence Gower who presented puppets much like already dead and caged animals on exhibition. Every lifeless corpse was very tactile in nature and the vulnerability that one would perceive upon caged animals was translated pretty well into the installation. I was excited by the truth of life and death and puppets as well as the prospect of a completely transformed space to continue through the exhibition. To my disappointment but not complete disdain, everything opened up to reveal a somewhat reserved space that was chock full of work. The space did appear and function more differently than usual.

There was no predetermined path so wandering was the prescription. As I traversed the space I went from piece to piece much like an arcade game room to explore each station more closely (from what pieces were actually working properly).

Surprisingly enough, because of the show’s layout being primarily video and sculpture, all of the 2-D work was much more engaging and stimulating to the eye and the redundancy that echoed through the show was able to be separated into a quieter and more personal experience for myself. Work by Kentridge, Wright, and Simmons were just as effective in portraying what puppets were as many of the quite lengthy videos playing and the sculptures hanging.

Many of the videos in the show are quite lengthy and demand quite a bit of time from their audience. This was a turnoff for me because I only had x amount of time in my stay at the ICA to explore these areas. I was compelled not only by time but also lack of interest in a majority of the videos as they carried a redundancy across the exhibition. As in any situation there were exceptions that happened to grasp more of my time and patience. Huyghe's piece staged at Harvard University was one of those moments that held me in the room watching intently as puppets' puppeteered and all the behind the scene action that otherwise seemed unfair to reveal to anyone outside of the that community was revealed to the viewer in a nonchalant manner.

The entire back wall of the ICA, right near The Puppet Show lettering, was dedicated to sculpture. Perhaps because I was overloaded right at the entrance to the show or the work was expected to be puppets at this point, the entire back wall was rather lifeless due to the forbearing nature of Oppenheim’s piece. Artists that had some excellent work, like Kiki Smith and also Anne Chu, really needed to have their work represented under a different context because they were presented in a more historical arrangement that allowed them to be lost.

Many of the placement discrepancies of the show simply were due to the limited wall space as well as poor integration of larger pieces into areas. This led to a lot of visual confusion and over stimulation, an overall arrangement much like a natural history or science museum. If this was a desired effect it detracted from the potential of this show as there were specific areas that housed more interest than others. This was noticeable by the bodies, including myself, gathering at specific spectacles (appropriately titled) such as Oppenheim’s piece “Theme for a Major Hit.”

The saving grace for this show was fortunately the work by some of the individual artists shining through with some attention-demanding work. Such artists as Oppenheim, McCarthy, Nauman, Huyghe, and Ben-Ner all exhibited some funny as well as thought-provoking pieces that helped to hold my impression of the show together. It’s unfortunate that the show as a whole was filled with a lot of “Hot” spots where the attention and the action existed.

My overall impression of the show is much like the vacant nature of the puppet itself; both present and passive.

[Chris Golas is a curator at FLUXspace and an artist living and working in Philadelphia]



Bookmark to Del.icio.us

We're All In This Together

For you, For Me, From Me @ FLUXspace
Opening Reception: January 12, 2008, 6-8PM


For You, For Me, From Me is the latest show at FLUXspace in Kensington. Curated by Dustin Metz, the show features the work of Ben Kinsley, 3axap Bakc, and Julia Schwadron and Steve Lambert, collaboratively. According to the show announcement, “They have been making art with any one of us, or all of us in mind,” and while that does come across, after seeing the show I questioned in what way we were in mind, whether we were supposed to be a participant in artmaking, or simply an admirer.


Ben’s piece is an interactive storm on the sea, with a boat caught right in the middle of it. To get a better idea, imagine watching Deadliest Catch when you’re afraid someone’s going to go overboard, except you’re in control of their fate. Each component of the landscape, (the rain, waves, boat, clouds, and lightning), are all hand operated. As you are working the piece, you are also able to watch it happen on a screen as it is being recorded in “real time.” It is also displayed as live-feed downstairs in a separate area, which I think made surprising use of the space, where one can find out that you can make what you previously saw downstairs.


Julia and Steve’s pieces are upstairs on one wall. There are signs on a shelf that the artists made for anyone attending the show, along with an instructional card encouraging viewers to take a sign and put it wherever they deem appropriate (You can also email them a photo so they can post it on a website). This involvement with the pieces, which are all handmade, is what the show really is all about. Above the shelf are framed photos that Julia and Steve took of their own sign placement around Philadelphia. The witty, thoughtful, and simple signs seem to play off of graffiti, not stylistically, but because of their infiltration of the urban landscape.


3axap Bakc’s work is fairly new to me. While I’ve heard a lot about his work, I’ve never seen one of his paintings in person. His paintings have a lot of depth, and material is so important to the works. Downstairs, there are works on paper spread out over a very low table with chairs around it. It seems almost like a children’s crafting table, where you are able to look at the pieces. There’s also a very specific smell that fills the room, which I found out is clove oil that 3axap uses to make some of these drawings. Upstairs, there are four oil paintings, with layer upon layer of washes, text, symbols, and texture. While I admire 3axap’s skill and freedom with materials, by the time I left the show I wondered what the paintings had to do with me, other than enjoying them as I would any other piece of art. Were these really for me as the show title seemed to emphasize? I’m not sure.

I continually asked myself if 3axap’s work, albeit thoughtful and interesting, was the appropriate choice for a show based on work that was specifically prepared with an audience in mind. How do these personal, introspective paintings hold up compared to pieces where people are given the freedom to play? Any art in a gallery requires participation from the viewer. But in contrast to Kinsley, Schwadron and Lambert’s work which asks for physical participation, Bakc’s work requires reflection.

For You, For Me, From Me allowed the opportunity for connection between the viewer and the artist. It is exciting because we all can be a part of it, if we want. We can all make a storm, take it upon ourselves to make a statement, or look at 3axap’s work and delve into the layers, textures, and even aromas of his work. In my opinion, the only thing that takes away from this show is the fact that two of the works have so much to do with interaction and making something new from what an artist left for the viewer, who is now a participant, and another is quieter and more understated because it is overshadowed by the activity of the other pieces.

My final thought on this show is that all of the work is of a high caliber, and it is unfortunate that work that may be loud, or free is more engaging to today’s typical audience than a work that is comparatively quiet. I recommend giving each piece its fair share of consideration, not only for you, but also for me…but for you.

-Kati Gegenheimer
January 2008

[Kati Gegenheimer is an artist living and working in Philadelphia. If you would like to contact Kati, send an email to pages@funnelstudio.com]


Bookmark to Del.icio.us