I totally agree with you actually. I don't really draft my ideas either - except with shadow puppets, where I find that having a proper pattern to work from makes creating each overlapping part easier. I'm the same way in that I am not good at paint/drawing, so everything I make is either invented in my head or drawn using a paint program on my computer.

However, I think if you're a beginner, you may find it easier to build using a plan. It forces you to think about how the parts fit together and how they move; what the character design will look like; etc. And especially in terms of 'professionalism', as a beginner a draft design may help hone your concept into something that will work. Personally, I also find that for the more complex builds (my toy theatre that had a mini city in it) the more I need to sketch out certain parts of the mechanism so I can ensure I get it right. For the most part I haven't had problems once building from a sketch.

I do actually go into more detail about prototypes on the 'puppet design' article, which is far less encouraging of using sketches and far more encouraging of planning in your head. Sometimes though I think I write not perhaps the advice I'd actually give, but some food for thought so that people can go away and try to deconstruct their ideas. I'm sure many people wanting to learn how to make a puppet actually have difficulty in imagining the 'innards' of the puppet and how it works, so it helps if you tell them to sit down and work each bit through. -- The more experience you have building, the less you need to do that planning bit.

.... Basically we're in agreement though.

Interesting!  I don't know how to describe the "slick, "professional quality," or whatever, but I do know it when I see it.  I have ordered puppets that were advertised as professional, only to receive a puppet with foam that was not glued or put together in any way.  Not professional in my opinion.  I think that often people make a few puppets and regardless of quality call them professional because they were able to sell them, or call themselves professional puppet makers for the same reason.

I guess in some regards "professional" is like the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." 

These terms are a very slippery slope!  My puppet experience is limited, but this is a discussion I've had and heard many times in the theatre world (I'm a professional set designer in NYC).  Do puppets and scenery overlap?  Why not?  They're both theatre!  In my opinion, it often is about that "slick" look.  I know lots of designers that claim to be professional because they got a little bit of cash to do what amounts to a community theatre production.  Technically, does that make it a professional gig?  I suppose so, but the quality of work most often doesn't match the title.  On the flip side of that, I've donated my services to struggling theatres before.  Are those designs professional since I didn't get a paycheck?  I suppose the audience is the judge of that.

In the scenery world, it's all about the finished product.  Is it clean?  Does it tell the story it needs to?  Does it compliment the script?  Does it visually express the artistry of the director,playwright, and designer?  Are the typical laws of design...composition, proportions, etc...applied correctly and creatively?  Are all paint treatments carried out in a professional manner?(and believe me, you can tell when they aren't!)  I think that if I were to use the "slick" in my profession, these are some of the questions I would ask.

As for the drafting part of the puppet conversation, that is actually very similar as well.  First I research. I sketch a set multiple times, then a watercolor rendering, then 1/4" or 1/2" scale model, then paint elevations, then drafting.  That's for the bigger productions.  For a smaller show, I sometimes skip a few of the latter steps and treat the project like an art installation.  I dig in and just start creating.  This is on rare occasions, but when I do get to use this method, it's a treat.  Does doing a few less steps in the design process make it any less of a design?  I don't think so. It's just a different approach.  Again, I suppose this is for the audience to decide.  This is in fact how I started my first puppet.  I did several sketches, researched a lot of puppetry sites for how-to's (and found this site!), and just started.  I didn't have a clue what I was doing, but I'm slowly figuring it out.  The only way you get can get to a "professional" level in anything is to make a lot of mistakes along the way.

Wow, I just got a little preachy and long winded, but I hope you see where this is coming from!  I do think the two art forms are certainly related and can learn from the other.  Creativity is subjective, but there are certain definitive guidelines that can help separate amateurs from the pros.

In the scenery world, it's all about the finished product.  Is it clean?  Does it tell the story it needs to?  Does it compliment the script?  Does it visually express the artistry of the director,playwright, and designer?  Are the typical laws of design...composition, proportions, etc...applied correctly and creatively?  Are all paint treatments carried out in a professional manner?

I think I especially like the term, "clean." I think that's better than slick, which can sound so negative. I would strive to have my creations look clean.

Interesting!  I don't know how to describe the "slick, "professional quality," or whatever, but I do know it when I see it.  I have ordered puppets that were advertised as professional, only to receive a puppet with foam that was not glued or put together in any way.  Not professional in my opinion.  I think that often people make a few puppets and regardless of quality call them professional because they were able to sell them, or call themselves professional puppet makers for the same reason.

I guess in some regards "professional" is like the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." 

So true. I'm guilty of having on my Puppets in Melbourne site the word 'professional' in the browser title, because it attracts more hits. I'm thinking I will now change it... because really, all people need to know is whether or not I sell something of high quality. Whether I make a living from it or not, whether I've formally trained or not, etc is not really relevant.

These terms are a very slippery slope!  My puppet experience is limited, but this is a discussion I've had and heard many times in the theatre world (I'm a professional set designer in NYC).

Me too: I'm originally a theatre techie (mainly SM and lighting) and have this discussion on and off with amateur and pro theatre people here in Oz.

I often have trouble too, because there are shows I've seen that are 'slick'. Technically proficient, good quality professional theatre. But it just doesn't have soul, passion or anything. This adds to my problem of describing 'professionalism' because for me a lot of what I see being produced - amateur or pro - has an added quality of 'soul'. (What most people call an X factor I suppose, except for me it's not about stage presence but rather about how much the actor is putting into their character and how much they're leaving behind, like an untapped reservoir of emotion that they just can't be assed using)

Do puppets and scenery overlap?  Why not?  They're both theatre!  In my opinion, it often is about that "slick" look.  I know lots of designers that claim to be professional because they got a little bit of cash to do what amounts to a community theatre production.  Technically, does that make it a professional gig?  I suppose so, but the quality of work most often doesn't match the title.  On the flip side of that, I've donated my services to struggling theatres before.  Are those designs professional since I didn't get a paycheck?  I suppose the audience is the judge of that.

I totally agree. In my city, most of the theatre is fringe - what you would call off Broadway. (Actually, there's a theatre here named 'La Mama' after your famous one. It's a two-storey nylon factory that sits 60 people max and has so much paint on it that urban legend says it's 2 inches deep. Quite different to the modern-day American La Mama from what I've read) .. But I've worked on plenty of shows where we were all professionals, got paid nothing, but the quality was good.

In fact, something that always bothered me is that one acting school here is quite often well liked by critics, despite the performance being done by amateurs (students or recent graduates) and only acclaimed really because the school is considered one of the best in the country. I've seen some of the work that comes out of the school, and it would often be worse than many amateur shows I've seen.

'Professionalism' definitely is in the eye of the beholder and is based too many variables and biases.

In the scenery world, it's all about the finished product.  Is it clean?  Does it tell the story it needs to?  Does it compliment the script?  Does it visually express the artistry of the director,playwright, and designer?  Are the typical laws of design...composition, proportions, etc...applied correctly and creatively?  Are all paint treatments carried out in a professional manner?(and believe me, you can tell when they aren't!)  I think that if I were to use the "slick" in my profession, these are some of the questions I would ask.

I recently had a conversation with someone over how to define 'design'. It's interesting because a number of things that they came back to was that design is often misleading (there are a number of natural phenomena that look they they're designed, but are just made up of natural and random processes). Additionally, when we talk of something designed by a person, we usually assess something as 'designed' because it is *simplified* in style/mechanism. We tend to design things that are a reduction of parts, trying to make use of all that we can/are provided with, and also reducing the amount of work that is done in the process.

I find this idea very interesting, as it suggests that we trend towards minimalism.

As for the drafting part of the puppet conversation, that is actually very similar as well.  First I research. I sketch a set multiple times, then a watercolor rendering, then 1/4" or 1/2" scale model, then paint elevations, then drafting.  That's for the bigger productions.  For a smaller show, I sometimes skip a few of the latter steps and treat the project like an art installation.  I dig in and just start creating. 

I've only done a little set design - studying it at uni for a few months - but honestly I think the two are different in terms of how it's approached. For set design you have more requirements: must fit through doors, must not exceed safety areas, must account for height/weight/whatever. You're also worried about sight lines and proper measurements and other things that are simply not necessary to plan for with puppets. If you're doing some sort of complex cable-control system or animatronics, then I have no doubt that a draft design and/or prototype would be useful. But for the most part, a puppet can be totally improvised. You can't do that easily with a set design.

(I should point out that a lot of the shows I've worked on here are during festivals, whereby a number of our venues are 'in and out' - you load in 7 minutes before your show starts and get everything out no more than 7 minutes after your show ends - which means that most of our performances have to be without any set at all. We usually make do with props and/or necessary set items that can be moved easily. Everything else is for the big shows/musicals with lots of money and a permanent venue)

This is on rare occasions, but when I do get to use this method, it's a treat.  Does doing a few less steps in the design process make it any less of a design?  I don't think so. It's just a different approach.  Again, I suppose this is for the audience to decide.  This is in fact how I started my first puppet.  I did several sketches, researched a lot of puppetry sites for how-to's (and found this site!), and just started.  I didn't have a clue what I was doing, but I'm slowly figuring it out.  The only way you get can get to a "professional" level in anything is to make a lot of mistakes along the way.

Yep! Mucking in and getting dirty is the best way to do it!
But again, I don't think it works as well for set design. Mainly because if you don't design a set well, someone can get hurt.

Wow, I just got a little preachy and long winded, but I hope you see where this is coming from!  I do think the two art forms are certainly related and can learn from the other.  Creativity is subjective, but there are certain definitive guidelines that can help separate amateurs from the pros.

Haha, long-winded should be my middle name

But yeah, having done a bit of every role of theatre I can see that a lot of the creative concepts overlap in a number of places. And that's the thing: each design has to complement the whole, so it's often not just about creating 'a puppet' or 'a set design' but something which fits in with the rest of the vision. I like that aspect, because it forces you to think about how to do something that you might not necessarily do otherwise; and no matter how much you plan, there's always going to be a need to change/improve to accommodate something that you haven't thought of.

One of the reasons I love theatre so much. It's problem solving on a grand scale