I will go along and be even more crass. Evidently few posters have read or understood the posts at the start of this thread. For the 'newbies': Magic is a meta craft which delivers an audience a meta experience.Originally posted by Bill Jackson:
...I wonder if it is a valid analogy to compare Magic with Porn?...
The comparison seems valid up to a point -- it seems to address something authentic about the spectator's perspective. However, on the performer's side I believe there is a world of difference between the "porn star" and the magician with respect to the potential "artistry" of their respective endeavors. The magician (as artist) must practice long, diligently, and imaginatively to create the "effect" on his or her audience. I do not believe there is any serious counterpart in the other context.I wonder if it is a valid analogy to compare Magic with Porn?
Love for magic is not unlike the adolescent fascination of f**king with people.
A "good" film may be recognized for it's romance and magic...
Both porn and magic are tricks in search of a plot.
A porn film may aspire to be considered a legit theatrical piece, but the closer it approaches art...the less it may be appreciated by those who love porn. The same may be for magic I think the fascination with the "trick" or "the power" may be "base" or "basic" nature (or even "adolescent nature"). I think we can choose to cater to it or not.
Fascination with sex and magic are not too different in they are both a fascination with power. And a show full of great "theatrics" doesn't necessarily make "good" (respected) theater. If the magic becomes incidental to the theatre, is it still a "magic" show? There are special effects shows and there are shows with special effects. I think the two tend to overpower each other and compete for attention. In some ways they depend on each other (sex & love, magic & art, F/X & theater), . . .
Those are three interesting statements. Since Magic makes use of the arts (performing and producing) and sciences we would be most wastful to ignore the resources.Originally posted by Kainoa Harbottle:
1) art has a history within this boundary, but functions largely beyond it (although people still turn to metaphoric language within these boundaries to describe their visceral responses
2) I personally want people to have a different reaction from a piece of art than they do from my magic, but I personally am not certain as to which way I want to go.
3) How do we theorize about generating meta-experiences in the face of the inherent subjectivity of that experience?
It would seem we are looking at the same issues, though may be using some unfamiliar language. The introduction to Umberto Eco's "Limits of Interpretation" offers even the facile reader a discussion of the artist/audience meaning issue. The seriousness of the issue would warrant attention from the serious student of the craft.Originally posted by Kainoa Harbottle:
... 1) its meaning is up for grabs for the audience. ...
2) Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques into more useful formats, mainly because of how they use the form and structures of language (rather than just visual or auditory content) in order to create magic
3) I wonder if magicians dont need another volume of Tarbell on semiotic and cognitive studies.
Bill asks a great question here. What is a meta experience? He also comes so close to grasping and writing an answer that I hope the rest us can appreciate his asking.Originally posted by Bill Jackson:
... Is a "meta experience" one where we step beyond our assumptions to question ourselves?...
It is a foregone conclusion that accomplishment in the arts and sciences requires dedication and persistance. Likewise it is understood that craft is not art, nor action necessarily effective "performance art". Michael, how would you suggest one approach improving their work with an eye towards some means of knowing how or if they were improving?Originally posted by Michael Kamen:
I think that first comes the artist, then the art. ... what defines the activity as art.
After the insights of Duchamps and Pollack one might do well to ask if more 'ready mades' have been placed in museums or if time captured in paint is a basis for much significant new art. In both cases time has answered in the negative.Originally posted by Michael Kamen:
...your mirror, your teacher(s) and your audiences.
I too am sorry Mop did not benefit when reminded that by simple construction our craft makes use of all the arts and therfore inherits the right to the greatest range of their recognition. In mathematics this would be considered obvious by inspection and merit no discussion.Originally posted by Bill Jackson:
...has any magicians produced a work that evoked a genuine tear..not with an accompaning story, but with with the use of magic
This seems to imply/assume that it's the job of art to evoke emotion. I disagree and would say that art (in it's highest form) is conceptualized beauty. That is, it produces and depends on a conceptual reference frame in which the artistic artifact is perceived as beautiful.With all our dedication and practice, has any magicians produced a work that evoked a genuine tear..not with an accompaning story, but with with the use of magic (no jokes please)? I know Copperfield tried a few times, but fell far short. What is the emotional vocabulary of magic to be an art?
I would argue the story that accompanies the trick is paramount, but since you asked:With all our dedication and practice, has any magicians produced a work that evoked a genuine tear..not with an accompaning story, but with with the use of magic (no jokes please)?
Discussions with such departments and staff need to be either more open as invitations to comment or very much more specific to (try to) avoid constructing ambiguity.Originally posted by Bill Jackson:
I wrote to the Council to see what they would say... My question was broad