Is the Performance of Magic as Personal...

[RDChopper]

dude ur right, but u can change the patter to the person are performing for, i have done it a few times and it works well, they put 100% of them selfs in the effect of the magic

I actually said that in my last posts, what I am trying to say, its that with music, the composer prints a part of his own self in the song, the song means something to him, in our routines, that isn't happening, we just do them becausewe know the laymen enjoys them, but that's all.

Another thing that music has and what we forgot to do, is to interpret, and by this I mean, the ability to really believe what we are saying, a lot of times we are just saying Bull*** and they know, but they know because they see that we do not believe in the stuff that we are saying, we have to be actors, we have to act whatever thing that we are doing, from a simple"Now, your card is obviously not on top(of course it is!)" to the more intricate routines that we have to offer.

We are just a bunch of mediocre actors, trying to sell a bad acted lie.

 

[MagicLemonBird]

Fair enough.

I'm going to go ahead and ruin something everybody here seems to love, so here's an open challenge to all the card enthusiasts reading this. Take Portal. Explain to me why I should give a **** about that card trick.

After you're done failing at that, tell me why I should do Portal instead of my routine with a pendulum and a world map involving locations relevant to the participant.

This is the inherent problem I find with a lot of material. There is no real motivation or appeal. It's simply jerking off. And in that way magic is a bit like the work of guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I would use Portal in a flourishig video and not really for a spectator. But something from Dan and Dave I would use in front of a spectator is Hand to Mouth.

 

[RDChopper]

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I would use Portal in a flourishig video and not really for a spectator.

Was there a need to justify yourself? No.

 

[romeo sierra]

Frankly, magic simply isn't a respectable art. I think it could/should be. Many magicians praise its originality and charm, but I honestly don't believe it has much of any. ...At least nothing as personal or relatable as other performance arts. I think that's sad because magic's been around since the beginning of time and has been at a standstill for decades.

I don't buy into the inherent secrecy argument because every other performance art has its own secrets as well. I explained that in a previous post. Just as music as notes, dance has steps, and theatre has lines-- magic has sleights and gimmicks. I think magicians stress too much about guarding sleights rather than creating moments. That's partially what's holding them back from connecting to broader audiences. That's partially what's holding back magic from growing.

Some people have said that magic isn't as accessible as other crafts. I'm saying THAT is THE problem. I want to find solutions to advancing what we do to make it as mainstream and revelant to modern audiences today.

Others have said that audiences can't see past "tricks." That's why magic on television hasn't succeeded very well. I said that is a difficult boundary to overcome, but people have succeeded very well in doing so. I believe when a magician gets a performance right... when he orchestrates a moment in just the right balance... people don't care about how he accomplished it. They just appreciate it and recognize him for the talent. Some prime examples would be Derren Brown today and maybe David Copperfield 15 years ago. Even then, I believe people can surpass their contributions in terms of reaching out and making magic an appealing, emotional experience. It's just a matter of acknowledging what makes other performance arts so reputable and adapting that to what we do.

To believe magic is just a way of doing a series of impossibilities is not doing it justice. Regardless if the tricks are mindblowing... they're only tricks if they don't leave an impact of people. An educated monkey can do the tricks we do. In terms of creative structure, how can we work with people's emotions rather than meager, trivial props?

RS.

 

[Steerpike]

We are just a bunch of mediocre actors, trying to sell a bad acted lie.

Mediocre might be too strong a word to describe a lot of the people here. Hell, actor might be too strong a word.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I would use Portal in a flourishig video and not really for a spectator. But something from Dan and Dave I would use in front of a spectator is Hand to Mouth.

My finely calibrated Giving A **** Meter still shows no activity. Hand to Mouth, what reason does that give me as an audience member to care?

Frankly, magic simply isn't a respectable art. I think it could/should be. Many magicians praise its originality and charm, but I honestly don't believe it has much of any. ...At least nothing as personal or relatable as other performance arts. I think that's sad because magic's been around since the beginning of time and has been at a standstill for decades.

Part of the problem is that it seems to me the magic community is notoriously conservative. Think how many magicians actually attempt to do something innovative or different.

Robert-Houdin made it mainstream for his time. Penn and Teller break some rules and bend all the others. Doug Henning was one of the only magicians who didn't miss the boat on exploiting television.

Sadly, there really aren't that many trailblazers in the industry when you get right down to it. And if you think about it, those that try get no support. They're labeled as heretics and madmen. This is probably one of many factors in why magicians totally missed the boat when it comes to using the internet. Hell, the porno industry figured it out faster than we did, or pretty much anyone else for that matter.

I don't buy into the inherent secrecy argument because every other performance art has its own secrets as well. I explained that in a previous post. Just as music as notes, dance has steps, and theatre has lines-- magic has sleights and gimmicks.

Be prepared for about 20 yahoos to ram down your throat talking points that the secrets are our art and some vague allusions to destroying the art by guarding them with less fervor than a CIA operative does his identity.

Some people have said that magic isn't as accessible as other crafts. I'm saying THAT is THE problem. I want to find solutions to advancing what we do to make it as mainstream and revelant to modern audiences today.

Well, to get off my complaining, let's start with trying to figure out a few roots in art studies.

Who here knows the difference between the semantic and syntactic definitions of a genre?

 

[Shakutau]

I do not, could you tell us please?

 

[Steerpike]

Semantic definitions involve the vocabulary of the genre, the sensual trappings. It clues us in to what we're watching. The problem is that it's incredibly flexible and can cross a few wires. I'll explain in a second.

The syntactic definition is the core themes that define the genre. In horror for example, it's commonly argued that the syntactic definition of the genre is, "Normalcy is disturbed and threatened by the Monster. The Monster defies our reality, cannot be reasoned with, and exists only to destroy."

The problem with taking a purist approach with either definition is a lack of nuance. For example, Near Dark has many of the semantic elements of a Western, but it also contains syntactic aspects of a horror movie as well. Outland is a Western by syntactic definitions, but it has the semantic vocabulary of a science fiction film. The examples just go on.

Alien (horror/sci-fi)
The Matrix (wuxia/sci-fi)
Star Wars (samurai/sci-fi)
Shrek (romantic comedy/fantasy)
Princess Mononoke (war/fantasy)
The Dresden Files (noir/fantasy)

Yes, I know I watch/read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy.

The point is, writers very deliberately consider the semantic and syntactic definitions of genres before they commit their ideas to paper. In my experience, most magicians are not only terrible actors, they're terrible writers as well. They have no idea what they're doing, and none of their presentations are ever consistent enough to clearly use a semantic or syntactic definition of anything.

This also means there's a lack of message. The syntactic definition in particular does not stifle diverse messages. It simply provides a framework. For example, take the horror stories of Rosemary's Baby, Dracula, and Alien. While adhering to the syntactic definition they are still able to explore themes of motherhood and the feminine, the repression of sexuality, and the integration of the masculine and feminine to protect the family unit respectively.

Most magicians never think of these things. Ever. They're too busy fantasizing about how many girls they're going to impress. And for magic to be taken seriously as an artform, it needs to start acting like one and take things like this into consideration.

 

[Shakutau]

This also means there's a lack of message.

This...these are the things i have been stuck on, i feel that my problems would have a good start to being solved from now on. Steerpike, would you spare us some time, and discuss more on this subject?

(And man, Princess Mononoke is the one. I also recommend you watch Tekkon Kinkreet. Eng subs).

 

[Steerpike]

This...these are the things i have been stuck on, i feel that my problems would have a good start to being solved from now on. Steerpike, would you spare us some time, and discuss more on this subject?

Well, there's only so much I can tell you in a limited space. Besides that, my genre studies tend to be extremely focused, and I have a hard time finding more sources that aren't insanely expensive textbooks.

What genres are you into in literature, film, and music? What are some of your favorite books, movies, and bands? I'll try to offer what I can.

 

[Shakutau]

My favoured literature are Novels and Short Stories. The Books i like are Catcher in the Rye, various Manga oriented books, Story/Novels that has to do with fantasy themes/games (IE Guildwars, Warhammer, Dungeon and Dragon), various Short Stories from unfamous ones, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

For Film i assume you are talking about both movies and series. I watch a lot of anime. Cowboy Bebop. Tekkon Kinkreet. Hellsing. Samurai Champloo. The more deeper things like that. Movies - i love to watch things like Crime Thriller's (Infernal Affairs), Drama (Shinjuku Incident), Epic (Red Cliff), and Comedy (Happy Feet).

Music, i like Jazz and Harmonica Blues. Occasionally i listen to Nujdabes (Feather). I dont have favorate bands.

 

[Steerpike]

Then I would say to start doing genre studies on science fiction and space operas. Wouldn't hurt to also study Joseph Campbell.

 

[Shakutau]

Thanks dude.