Desperately Seeking Meaning

[Guest]

Once again...

A guy masters an incredibly difficult sleight, and I mean MASTERS...it's invisible. He performs it wherever he performs, and it baffles the hell out of his audiences. He's satisfied, so are they, and he gets paid. Nothing wrong with this.

Another guy goes through the same process of mastery, then decides he wants to tell a little ghost story using the sleight as illustration. So he researches local ghost legends. He then writes, re-writes, and polishes until his script is as tight as his technique. He performs it for his audiences. Some of them may not like ghost stories, but that's a price he's willing to pay in order to let his audience find him. Nothing wrong with this.

Yet another magician goes through those two processes, yet she decides to take it one step further into socio/political commentary. Her audience is considerably narrowed. Nothing wrong with this, either.

Still another goes through these steps and decides that the sleight really IS the thing, after all. He works twice as hard as any of them, and begins to create new sleights that are so difficult it takes others years to catch up with him. He let's the 'entertainment' aspects of his performance fall away until the only interested audience left to him are other magicians. Nothing wrong with this, either.

Which of these are 'art'?
ALL OF THEM!

Who above is "right"?
All of them!

M.E.

[David Alexander]

Because I deliver a known quality of entertainment to the people who pay me (which is why they pay me) I am not necessarily limited in my approach to performing. In the course of performing hundreds of shows - and only in the course of performing hundreds of shows - do little things make themselves visible...little tweaks that, when incorporated into a presentation, add a bit of polish and/or clarity and make the presentation better.

The working pro knows to keep his eyes open for these opportunities to better his work, absent the static and mildly condesending "journeyman" category you seem pleased to apply to those who work for money.

What M.E. (whoever you really are) confuses as "essence" in talking about Norm's presentation of the Miser's Dream are commonly understood presentational techniques that have been used by professionals for years. Several decades ago I showed almost the exact same technique to teenaged performer (who is now quite well known) when he was presenting the billiard balls in one of his early professional shows.

[Guest]

The working pro knows to keep his eyes open for these opportunities to better his work, absent the static and mildly condesending "journeyman" category you seem pleased to apply to those who work for money.>>>>

Another straw man argument. David, I never equated 'people who work for money' with 'journeymen.' (Nice try, though!) Penn & Teller, Losander, Kevin James, these are all people who work for money, and I can't think of one of them that displays a journeyman's attitude.


>>>What M.E. (whoever you really are) confuses as "essence" in talking about Norm's presentation of the Miser's Dream are commonly understood presentational techniques that have been used by professionals for years.>>>

David, are you missing the point? Or being deliberately obtuse? There's a difference between 'commonly understood presentational techniques,'and a performance that takes your breath away.

>>>Several decades ago I showed almost the exact same technique to teenaged performer (who is now quite well known) when he was presenting the billiard balls in one of his early professional shows.>>>>

You did? You showed him how to not only still his entire body, but also his spirit? You showed him how to narrow his consciousness to the point that only that shiny billiard ball existed in his mind and the collective mind of the audience? You showed a teenager how to harness over 40 years of performing experience, teaching him not only the 'how', but the 'why'? Congrats, David. You must be really, really good!

M.E.

[Guest]

What M.E. (whoever you really are) confuses as "essence" in talking about Norm's presentation of the Miser's Dream are commonly understood presentational techniques that have been used by professionals for years.>>>>

One more thought...

David, if you want to brush aside Norm's life's work as "commonly understood presentational techniques" that you, personally, have been able to teach teenagers for decades, that's your business.

But consider this, 'being natural' is also a 'commonly understood presentational technique, but I'd bet nickels to doughnuts that Vernon's version of 'natrual' was a considerably different experience than yours is. (And there's no shame in that, my friend, VERY few can match Vernon in this regard.)

M.E.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Is this about finding meaning or have we moved on to finding ways to be mean to eachother?

[David Alexander]

"MagicalElder" is beginning to sound like Mark Lewis.

[David Alexander]

And since I don't have anything to do with Mark Lewis (or people who sound like Mark Lewis) I'll bow out now.

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
"MagicalElder" is beginning to sound like Mark Lewis.

>>>

Nahhh, Mark Lewis would NEVER say that all points of view are "right" or that they are "art."

But if you want to use your ad hominem statement as a justification, I certainly won't try to stop you.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion, it's always enjoyable to disagree with someone with firm convictions.

M.E.

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
"MagicalElder" is beginning to sound like Mark Lewis.

My "Mark Lewis detector" didn't so much as squeak. Not him. ;)

[Dustin Stinett]

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
Freewill (Rush) Lyric by Neil Peart

Well this has certainly been fascinating. My very first reaction is, Did anyone read my original posts?

Every once in a great while I will post some obscure reference to another thread here in the Forum: You know; just to see who gets it. (I certainly did not want to see the rancor that resulted.)

I suppose this one was too obscure.

In regard to that thread, I had an email conversation with a friend where I mentioned that I believed some people will seek meaning where I believe there really is none beyond, say, a simple joke. But then again, that in itself is a form of meaning. Furthermore, I said, different people will find different meanings from the exact same source (and, in fact, listed several that could be extrapolated from this particular source).

It turned out that I was correct (and he never doubted that I was, I might add).

So, I came up with this little post, which has now resulted in a conversation that helps prove the above point: Meaning is different to everyone. And not just to the receiver, but the sender as well. And often, the meaning being sent is not the meaning that is received. Mr. Schneider is proof of that. While he does not seek meaning in his magic, I hate to break it to him, but his audience probably finds some. They find it because they are seeking it.

Here in my office hallway hangs a painting. Its one of those abstract, paint slapped everywhere affairs that, to my eyes, looks like a selection from the Kindergarteners Gone Wild gallery. A colleague of mine can clearly see the image of the late John Lennon within the splatters of paint. Shes serious: I think shes nuts.

The painting has meaning for the both of us (and, I think, the artist laughed his butt off all the way to the bank).

The first time I saw Cirque du Soleils Quidam, during intermission, I overheard a woman speak about how one performance piece represented the birthing process.

Wow.

In subsequent viewings of the show, I decided that I could see how she could come away that interpretation: After all, a woman (whose costume makes her appear virtually naked) ultimately emerges from within the folds of two red shrouds that hang from the tent-top. I dont know what the artist is trying to say (if anything). Maybe it is birth: For all I know the woman I overheard at the show was the performers mom. But I was simply amazed at the physical strength and control she exhibited: Meaning.

Pick a card; any card. Remember itdont let me see it. I shuffle it into the deck; its lost. I snap my fingers and one card is face up in the deck. Is that your card?

With all due respect to those who argue against the concept, as long as the answer to the last question is yes, this simple trick has meaning.

Oh sure, it might be the lowest form of meaning there is, but its meaning nonetheless. Its not saying a word about the performers likes and dislikes or his ideology on any subject, nor is it purposely connecting on an emotional level with the spectator.* But, it was a personal event for that spectator: it was his or her card. He/she was involved: He/she was fooled (hopefullythis all assumes competent technique, which is a different subject), baffled, mystified, puzzled, impressed, whatever. (*But, perhaps, her late Grandpa always used to do a card trick for her, and it took her back, momentarily, to a happy youth. One never knows.)

As was noted a couple of times, my question was flawed. Thats true probably because I never had any real belief in the question. It was rhetorical and had a purpose other than that which it now represents. Because, in fact, I believe magic has always had meaning and has never lost it. Its just on many different levels.

Dustin

Two men are walking along a river: One picks up a stone. What does this rock mean to you? he asks the other man, who answers: The creation of the planet: It represents the upheaval and immense power, heat and pressure and time it took to form it. And then the slow erosion it will experience over time, ultimately breaking it down to grains of sand. The first man ponders the answer, shrugs, and skips the stone across the river.

[Richard Kaufman]

I don't think Magical Elder is Mark Lewis.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Two ideas that seem pertinent;

You can't not communicate

The meaning of a (communication) can be found in the response it elicits.

For those who love the obtuse, have a good look at the formal equation describing a measurement used in basic Quantum Mechanics. All those terms to get though on the way to the tiny object of investigation.

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Two ideas that seem pertinent;

You can't not communicate

The meaning of a (communication) can be found in the response it elicits.

And if that response is incongruent with the meaning you attempted to telegraph, who picks up the tab?

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:

The meaning of a (communication) can be found in the response it elicits.

However, the response must be perceived by a receiver; and the message may be distorted due to environmental noise, or misunderstanding.

[Guest]

Just a few comments.

A quote:

'Mr. Schneider is proof of that. While he does not seek meaning in his magic, I hate to break it to him, but his audience probably finds some. They find it because they are seeking it.'

I suggest you reread my post. I said I do not seek art in my work. (Someone accused me of this) I did say that if others wish to see it that way, it is up to them. I am attempting to respond when someone says I cannot believe what I beleive.

What others choose to believe is up to them. I would wish that they be polite enough to let me live in my own self-delusion if they do not agree that in my own head I might have an independent belief.

And now that I am rolling, here is an observation. It seems that whatever I intend or what others intend seems to be art. It seems that everything is art. I looked at a pot on my stove. Some would consider that a work of art becasue it was a very pretty pot. Then, I thought that some would consider a cheap pot a work of art because so many people bought them. It seems to me that everything is art.

If everything was red there would be no such color.

To people in theater all is theater and all physical motions and speech are acting. If I look in the mirror in the morning and smile at myself, am I acting?

Likewise, it seems anything in our society can have the label of "art".;

My best friend is an artitst. He has made his living at it for years. He thinks the discussion is silly.

I would enjoy from someone that is a professional in that industry that earns their living selling art. I would rather not hear from people that teach it but rather from those that do and hopefully successful.
Al Schneider

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Rafael Vila:

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
[b]
The meaning of a (communication) can be found in the response it elicits.

However, the response must be perceived by a receiver; and the message may be distorted due to environmental noise, or misunderstanding. [/b]

Bunch of ideas there. I agree with most of them. Precise language helps in this stuff.

The outward bound transmitted attempt at communication can be called a signal/stimulus/message/artifact.

The inward bound stimulus upon the person receiving the signal/message/artifact may or may not be degraded/distorted by the physical environment on its way.

The content of the signal/message/artifact is that point utterly up to interpretation by the person on the receiving end of the communication.

Let's say the signal ( how about a few words for example? ) makes it through intact. Now the receiver has to interpret the signal and from there respond in a way that serves their interests. Their interpretation process may involve deleting part of what they received, distorting what they received and also may involve making inferences upon what they received or generalizing.

Folks including a guy named Shannon studied and formalized the signal/data part of this process in communications work last century. Other folks like Noam Chomski, Freud etc worked on the cognitive science part of this process.

Hardly as simple as we might like, huh! :D

[Dustin Stinett]

Mr. Schneider,

I stand corrected. But I stand behind my point about meaning and the audience seeking it. I did not address the subject of art, which is a different discussion. I apologize for referencing your statement incorrectly.

For what its worth, I find that your practice of the craft of magic can be very artistic, whether you seek it or not.

Regards,
Dustin

[Guest]

It is unfortunate the line of thought was sidetracked. I thought your start was good.

Thanks for noting the point.

As to your point of view. So be it.

Al Schneider

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Al Schneider:
It is unfortunate the line of thought was sidetracked. I thought your start was good...

If it takes great boredom to encourage the denizens of magicdom to learn a bit about the modern world and its technology, so be it.

We do have an unfortunate habit of reinventing the wheel here in our little domain. Perhaps this time the boredom will be sufficient to encourage folks to find other magic numbers in our Dewey decimal system and find new resources.

By the way, the masses outside of magicdom now get plenty of magic without seeing anybody fussing with cards, coins or canes. They get theirs in the bookstore, movies and role playing games. On the whole, we are probably way behind the times.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Al Schneider:

If I look in the mirror in the morning and smile at myself, am I acting?
Al Schneider

>>>

Proabably.

Either that, or you just catching sight of you is enough to bring you joy.

The question is, if it IS acting, do you believe yourself? And do you find meaning in it?

M.E.

[Guest]

what the heck is this? "creatures with different cosmoconceptions"? ;)

tbh, I thought you guys were kidding about the rancor ... there seems to be more agreement than not, about diversity in presentation and intention

and I also thought it was a strange digression from the question of "meaning" to the question of "art"

as a grasshopper-dabbler in a few areas, I'm more likely to side with people who make artifacts for open-ended contemplation

and the messages that "need to get across" occur every day by such subtleties as glances and postures and dreams [sorry, forgot chat rooms and internet forums], and let's hope the transmission of those messages [or propaganda?] doesn't depend on some magician coming to town next October

[Guest]

>>Really? Chaplin worked on City Lights for over two years...looked 'strained', did it? How many re-writes of Phantom of the Opera do you think Leroux went through before he was satistfied? Beethoven said the....9th, was it?....popped into his head all at once, but then he spent months polishing it until it was.........art.<<

And Dylan wrote some of his greatest song in under five minutes..as did Paul McCartney.

They both work...we both win.

[Guest]

Originally posted by INFANTINO:

And Dylan wrote some of his greatest song in under five minutes..as did Paul McCartney.

They both work...we both win.

Very true! (But damned if I can find meaning in Band on the Run. Why the hell were the Jailer Man and Sailor Sam searching everyone?)

Just out of curiosity, what is your favorite that needs no story, as such? One that stands alone so strongly that any kind of story would actually detract from it?

M.E.

[Guest]

Congradulations MagicElder.
You have conclusively presented proof of my point with great accuracy.
AL Schneider

[Guest]

whatever happened to coffee cups and doughnuts?

[George Olson]

Egads!

What a bunch of pseudo-intellectual hog-wash!

As the great 20th century philosopher once said....

"Can't we all just get along.."

GO

[Dustin Stinett]

Hey bub! There's nothing "pseudo" about my hog-wash!

[Matthew Field]

Just to clarify my original post, I was calling no one a swine. The trope I quoted is just a metaphor.

As to Art and Magic, it doesn't have to be about stories. It can be about movement, about clarity -- I hope you get the distinction.

Finally, some folks do not "get" the Andy Warhol soup can paintings and some do. How much for that pot on the stove, Mr. Schneider?

Matt Field

[Guest]

Originally posted by Al Schneider:
Congradulations MagicElder.
You have conclusively presented proof of my point with great accuracy.
AL Schneider

Yay! What do I win? (I hope it's not your spellchecker.)

If you're going to hurl insults at people in a way designed to showcase your 'intellect', the effect is lessened by glaring typos. Kind of like when the coins talk during a matrix. (Now, now, don't get angry. I'm simply trying to respond in the passive-aggressive tone you've already set.)

You've already felt compelled to apologize for babbling. You're perilously close to having to do it again.

M.E.

[Mark Collier]

I imagine Vernon's version of 'natrual' was very different than mine.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Mark Collier:
I imagine Vernon's version of 'natrual' was very different than mine.

Mine,too! Mine is a journeyman sort of naturalness. Vernon worked on it until it was art.

M.E.

[Mark Collier]

I was pointing out a typo. :)

[Lisa Cousins]

You know, almost a century ago Stephen Leacock made this very same complaint about drama. He mourned the glad old days when people mounted action-packed, grand-scale melodramas for the sake of making money, and deplored the switch to theatrical "art" where the performers just sat around having self-indulgent chats. No thrills, no chills - just a whole lot of artsy self-expression.

Well, artsy self-expression works for me, as do action-packed thrills and chills, on condition that the performer is whole-heartedly, unconflictedly present, and really enjoying whichever one it is.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Mark Collier:
I was pointing out a typo. :)

DOH!

Hoisted by me own petard!

M.E.

[Guest]

During the "Rate a record" part, of "American Bandstand":
Dick Clark: "Bobbie Sue, what did you think of
the last record we played?"

Bobbie Sue: "It really spoke from the singer's heart, of the emotions felt in this world,when values and traditions are challenged daily....It helped me compare and contrast, the class advantages, and harsh despair of many."

Dick Clark: "And Richard, what did you think of the last record?"

Richard: "Well, I was going to say it had a good beat and it was easy to dance to, but I think I'll just sit down, thank you."

[Fred Zimmerman]

It's important when tackling a thorny question such as this one - "meaning" in magic - the question must be fully understood. Time must be taken and brain cells expended.

Clearly, "meaning" in magic means difference things to different people. And also clearly, many people have knee-jerk reactions to any discussion about it. The dismissive and mocking tone of many of these posts communicate that.

However, I believe that if one were to breathe through their nose, sit back, relax, and think clearly and without prejudice about the question, it can evolve from asking about "meaning" in magic into a discussion about the "relevance" of magic.

The movement in regards to finding, infusing, or re-discovering the meaning in magic arose when the performance of magic was becoming incredibly hum-drum and cookie-cutter.(Not unlike today)

This isn't to say that there haven't ALWAYS been pioneers and mavericks who broke from the ranks to create something wonderful ... and RELEVANT ... to their audience. This is true in any discipline, artistic or otherwise. There are always exceptions, so I won't go there.

However, this "stale" approach to magic that was happening 40 years ago is still happening today - it's cyclical. To wit ...

First, a new performance paradigm is set by a group. Good or bad, it doesn't matter - it is done by those who have bothered to think in a new way.

Next, the majority of performers, due primarily to laziness and lack of talent, follow along with it in lock-step.

Lastly, when this is kept up long enough, the performance art loses its relevance because the focus has shifted from creating something "relevant" that the audience will like and appreciate, into "keeping up with the Joneses."

In other words, the goal of the piece has turned inwards and become incenstuous. Never a good thing.

Therefore, when magicians began striving for "meaning" in magic, they were searching for a way of re-connecting with the audience - of finding a way to make magic "relevant" once again.

Now then, to equate "meaning in magic" solely with intricate stories and deep emotion is foolish and myopic. It would be the same as equating theatre or movies ONLY with intricate stories and deep emotion. Some plays and movies exist as pure esacapism - pure entertainment - and that's just fine. The people putting them together set a goal and then set out to make it happen. The success or failure - or "meaning" - of the piece should be dictated by whether or not the creators acomplished their goal.

Now, even if they were successful, whether or not you LIKE the product is another issue altogether. I can recognize and appreciate a successful piece or work even if I don't necessarily LIKE it. I probably won't buy it, or patronize it, or even advocate it, but I can't deny its value - its relevance - its meaning.

The same is true with magic. If a performer sets out to be funny and entertaining, that's a meaningful goal. And an audience will only connect and be entertaind by the material if it somehow connects to them, if it is somehow "relevant" to them.

Now, if that performer seeks to be funny, and then tells 150 year old jokes, it won't be relevant, the audience won't care, they won't be entertained, and the performance becomes meaningless.

If, however, the performer seeks to be funny, moving, mysterious, intellectual, spooky, or whatever, and then accomplishes that goal, then what he/she was doing was found relevant by an audience, they connected to the audience on some level, and viola - meaning is achieved.

To conclude, some of the responses here are disappointing, but not surprising. To dismiss a question like this out of hand only demonstrates the current state of affairs. You can put it down to either a severe naivete about performance or simply intellectual laziness.

Think about it- don't think about - do whatever you want - but to ridicule those that do lacks class and exposes serious gaps in performance philosophy.

Fred Zimmerman

[Guest]

Rereading the original question and reading through all the postings, I have no idea what you guys are talking about :rolleyes:

Look no further!

Instead stick to the basics outlined by the one and only Albert Goshman :

THE MAGIC IS YOU!!!

and forget the intellectual c**p! ;) :p

[Guest]

Originally posted by Werner G. Seitz:
Look no further!

Instead stick to the basics outlined by the one and only Albert Goshman :

[b]THE MAGIC IS YOU!!!

and forget the intellectual c**p! ;) :p [/b]

Let me refrase that :

THE MAGIC IS YOU!!!

Forget the intellectual c**p and do the best you can, that's all you can do anyway, but doing it on purpose and being aware of to make the best out of it, makes all the difference in the world! ;) :p

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Werner G. Seitz:
...Forget the intellectual c**p and do the best you can...

That's what divides the copyists from the artists.

Apes and pigeons do the best they can. Humans can do better, based upon the lessons learned by others, principles and that intellectual "crap" you don't like.

[Guest]

Wrong Jon, read between the lines! :p
I said *do the best you can*...that means, nobody can do better!!!