JHostler wrote:Tom Stone wrote:Joe Mckay wrote:We offer wonder and magic. But to the audience - they still mostly see magic as a puzzle to be solved.
Who cares how the audience views it?
They are not participating in the creation of the pieces.
Well, that might be true if there was no audience - in which case you'd be performing entirely for yourself. Otherwise, it is precisely their perceptions and feelings that make the magic. A complete disregard for the audience's "view" is absurd.
No, it is not. It is the approach that gives the most artistic freedom. I have a few creations that I really like (Benson Burner, Of Dice and Men, Mr. Fogg...), and others seem to like them too - well, none of them would have been created if I had wasted time on trying to create something that would please an audience. I trust my art and my craft enough to know that if I focus 100% on that, there will always be an audience for the result.
The most recent example is also the most striking one. "Quantum Logic" in the May 2014 issue was created as a purely intellectual challenge and I had no intention of ever performing it. The intention was to do an as "perfect" pastiche on Jim Steinmeyer as I could manage. But once created, I fell in love with it and it is now the strongest item in my whole repertoire. From the first embryo of an idea to the finished piece and its inclusion in my act, not a single thought has been wasted on pondering over what the audience would think of it - it is a good piece, and I love it, and that is more than enough. Any audience who disagree are obviously wrong... and happily, I have not come across an audience like that yet. I've only met sensible audiences who has agreed with me.