I wrote an article ages ago for my site on this very topic, but am looking to update it. I'm interested to know what other people think, as I find it rather hard to define myself.

My ideas so far:

• A clear sense of character
• The build is tidy-looking, that is, no bits of it are falling apart, etc. (Unless of course, that's the character )
• The puppet mechanisms work and work well

What do you guys think?

I guess if you want to be technical, it would be a puppet that was made by a puppet builder that does it for a living and not just as a hobby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

I understand where you are going though.  There are a lot of great puppet builders that may not be building full time and they create and build puppets that are fantastic and worthy of the title professional.  I actually like this line from the Wikipedia definition.

Professional is a expert who is master in a specific field.

The only thing I think I might add to your list is durability of the product. That may be assumed by your second and third listing but I do think it is an important one.  A product can look great on the outside and even work well the first couple times but over time it falls apart because of over all poor craftsmanship or low quality materials.  Hmmm.... perhaps quality of materials is something to hit on. That being said I have made puppets in the past that I would have considered professional but chose to use lower grade materials because of either budget or because they where for a limited run/use.

I agree with you on the issue of professionality also being to do with it being done by someone who does is to get paid. There's an ongoing discussion on a theatre site I go to, because often the issue of professionality is more about attitude than payment.

Oops... durability, yeah that should have been obvious.

There's something intangible that I can't quite figure out how to express: it's when a puppet looks 'clean'. You know, seams invisible, eyes perfectly placed... etc. A sort of x factor for puppetry.

Maybe professionalism is more a 'I know it when I see it' thing?

I think you have to be careful not to confuse "professional" with "slick".  I use the word slick when I am speaking of something that is very commercial and clean. For the masses so to speak.  I think there are those who build professional puppets but they may not be the norm or appeal to the masses.  Like you it is hard for me to define it, it is just something I know when I see it.

I was told to use the term " TV Ready " does this qualify?

I've heard TV-ready as well, but I think that applies more to muppet-types. For instance, a puppet on TV can/should be used with close-ups. It's like how there's stage makeup and TV makeup - the camera captures everything, and so seams and creases and other things are more noticeable. Therefore your craftsmanship has to be extremely fine.

However, it also depends on your needs. Currently there are ads on Australian TV for a phone service (a directions/white pages thing), and they use a basic sock puppet. I mean, literally a green sock with buttons. Under the various definitions that I've read for 'TV ready', this puppet wouldn't count. But I wouldn't say it's not a professional puppet either. - And that goes for other puppets. A shadow puppet for instance can be TV ready without necessarily having to worry about the minute details.

I think you have to be careful not to confuse "professional" with "slick".  I use the word slick when I am speaking of something that is very commercial and clean. For the masses so to speak.  I think there are those who build professional puppets but they may not be the norm or appeal to the masses.  Like you it is hard for me to define it, it is just something I know when I see it.

Slick to me defines something that is professional but without passion. 'Technically excellent'. You know, something that perhaps ticks all the boxes for a reviewer or a critic, but never actually makes you feel anything. For me, this is the feeling I always got seeing shows by a local well-known theatre company. They produce things that are technically very proficient, well-acted, believable... but there's no fire. It feels like the actors just turned up to do a job they were well-trained for. But again, I wouldn't not call it professional.

... It's just such a fine line, that I don't think you could actually call a puppet professional. You can say a person is professional, but not the object that they make. In my opinion.

I think its a matter of what you like. If you classify all "new" puppet makers as "not professional" then you loose out on those great first time puppet makers who knock it out of the park. And just because someone has a career doing it does not nessessarily mean he or she is "professional". If it were me I would use some of the same adjetives that have already been used. A professional is someone who "crafts" the character breathes life into it as they construct it. Makes it look the very best they can from the heart. I always think of toy story 2 here. Remember when Woodie was injured and the evil toy man called the "professional" he was almost and old world craftsman he had his prefered tool chest with everything he needed and he maticulously restored Woody back to new like quality.

Just my two cents

Doc

I wrote a post about this on my own blog a few years ago and my thinking is still pretty much the same.

The whole "professional puppet" thing is kind of meaningless. As Shawn pointed out, in a literal sense professional just means paid, or that someone does something for a living. I do like that definition from Wikipedia, although some people might pick it apart.

What I think people really mean by "professional puppet" is "professional quality" or good. I think rather than defining what professional is or isn't, it would be much more helpful to discuss better ways to build puppets and not worry about semantics.

Apologies for not returning sooner to finish the conversation, I got very sick at the end of last year and have been putting the issue on hold for a bit. Basically I wanted some feedback on an article I was re-drafting.

Thanks for both Andrew and Dr Puppet's comments, as since posting this thread, I have come to much the same conclusion. In the end, my article dispells some of the myths (the definition of professionalism, how professionalism is something that develops over time, etc.) as well as discussing the real issue which is how to achieve good quality craftsmanship. I'd love some feedback.

You can read it here:
http://www.schoolofpuppetry.com.au/tutorials.php/professional-puppets-how-to-make-them

Good re-draft of the article. I think the only thing I would disagree with you on is the drafting of a plan for a well designed puppet. Actually I don't know that I so much disagree with what you say as that there are a multitude of ways to achieve this.

Unlike some puppet builders I don't as a rule draft or draw my designs. Two dimensional art has never been by strong point so I often just became frustrated when I tried this approach.  I do research and use existing photos or art to guide me but I don't have an actual diagram of the puppet I am building. That being said I do have a diagram in my head. I've spent hours visualizing what I want before I even start. That visualization is based on my years of experience and yes the multitude of books I've researched which do include diagrams.  

So like I said at the beginning I guess I am not really disagreeing with you so much as taking a different approach.