More Than a Picture: The Instrumental Quality of the Shadow Puppet (by Jan Mrázek)

Mrázek argues that it is inadequate to consider Javanese shadow puppets as simply pictorial representations, as he claims is the primary mode of analysis for Western art historians. Instead, they should be understood as instruments, with a physical and material presence, that is yoked to their function in performance. These puppets have an active relationship to both the puppeteers and the audience. Mrázek emphasizes the detailed physical qualities of the puppet — how they are constructed and move. As each puppet it is handmade, it is made in such a way so that it “feels and looks right when it is moved in the performance” (51), emphasizing a knowledge based on feeling and a familiarity with the art form. He notes that the puppets’ function as tools of performance and story precede how they look visually. The basic picture should not restrict the movement or the story. In his article, Mrázek includes explanations on how to hold and operate the puppets to depict certain movements.

Mrázek seems to have spent considerable time learning to perform with these Javanese shadow puppets. Sometimes he will interject his own experience to emphasize that, such as when he says, “Most dhalangs prefer the ‘Little Dog’ rather than the ‘Dead Dog’ (and so would I)” (56). Sometimes he will name specifically the source of his information, mostly from various teachers he has encountered or learned from. He will even include quotes from these teachers.

Though he emphasizes the main relationship a puppet has is to its puppeteer, he also acknowledges that it has a relationship to the audience too. However, he does not go into as much detail in characterizing that relationship or getting insight from those who sit on the other side of the screen. I would have liked to know more about the context in which this art form is performed today —— is it a closed cultural practice, a tourist attraction, etc.? Is a knowledge of this artistic tradition needed to watch as it is needed to perform? I believe that by not situating this art form in a specific context, Mrázek weakens his argument. If he is to discuss the importance of performance, it would seem necessary to explain why and when these puppets are perfomed.

Though I understand the point Mrázek is making by comparing the puppets to pictures, I do not believe it is the most accurate comparison to make. Pictures can possess their own active elements. For example, they may be tied to an oral storytelling tradition. In my own family, when people travel between Cambodia and the United States or France, they always bring photographs to show relatives. From these photographs, emerge stories about their lives and families in other parts of the world. They continually produce and reproduce stories and familial relationships.

Mrázek includes diagrams in his article, demonstrating an interest in dissecting the movements of these puppets to argue that their form relies on their performance function. However, I think it is somewhat ironic that he provides a written and pictorial guide on how to hold and operate the puppets while also emphasizing a necessary knowledge derived from feeling the puppets themselves. He often uses language that characterizes the puppets as tied to the living — “the dhalang emphasizes that the life comes from the chest, from the heartbeat, from the trembling of the body” (70) — so it seems inadequate to then attempt to capture their movement through still drawings.

Quotes:

“Again: ‘perhaps the puppet’s real beauty is its native theatricality.’ In performance it is this non-representational gracefulness of the form, together with the way the puppet functions as an instrument, that is brought out when the kayon is made to dance” (62).

“[The puppet] is, by itself, essentially incomplete, it is not a self-sufficient thing” (63).

Questions:

How might these puppets have been characterized differently if Mrázek chose to explore the relationship between the puppet and audience more?

Does the use of diagrams in this article support or detract from Mrázek’s argument?