"In Defense of Bikers" by Eugene Burger

Discuss the views of your favorite Genii columnists.

Postby Guest » 03/24/02 07:47 PM

Well done. Well done indeed. Probably the best article I have read in my short magicial lifetime that sums up my thoughts so well. I see so many "senior" magicians (by senior, I mean people who have been in the craft longer than I've been alive), telling people what's right and wrong. You need to learn THIS way, not THAT way, you shouldn't watch him, you should watch HIM. I get really frustrated when I see so many people who think there is only one way, only one "proper" (in their minds) way to do anything. If the guy who picks up my garbage can teach me a double lift, I'll listen to him.

I had the extreme pleasure to see Mr. Burger lecture and his article is dead on what he taught us at the lecture. Magic has many "rooms" as he taught us, and so he says again in the article. This is a man of magic integrity and my top hat goes off to him. It's nice to see someone not full of hypocracy speak about magic.

Hypocracy, just as in the case with the comments about the "bikers". It's apparently fine with the owner of that comment to say you can't group people together, and then turn right around and group people together in something outside of magic.

More power to you Mr. Burger and please keep up the excellent articles.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 03/25/02 09:26 PM

Dead on!
When you think about it, most of the classic performers had a different approach to magic than anyone.
Look at Joseph Dunninger- He took mentalism in a whole new angle and approach, and since then there have been many others, like Chan Canasta, Banachek, Kenton Knepper, or to date Derren Brown.
For the evolvement of today's magic into tomorrow's magic, whatever that may be; surely we need to try to think about magic independantly, and find our own approaches and new methods of achieving our aims of entertainment.
I may be slightly off the mark here, but i think that open-mindedness is important, and not to think of things as set in stone, when they may well be varied into great new approaches in magic.
I have not read the article myself- so i could be going down a different path :confused:

John
Guest
 

Postby Larry Horowitz » 03/29/02 03:28 PM

Eugene left out an important point. It is not just the availability of many rooms or the stereotyping of individuals in magic. It is the point that skill is the great divider. Remember cream will always rise to the top. I don't care if you perform comedy, bizarre or silent magic. If you present the magic at a high level of skill, it will be apprecieated. Eugene and I can perform the same effect, verbatim. We will get different reactions from the same people. There will be difference in our voice, our mannerisms, our gracefulness with the cards, etc. There are skills over and above the presentation style that come into play.

A great performer on his death bed said,"dying is easy,comedy is hard". Eugene was probably trying to convey this sentiment. Those who choose a comedic approach are fusing two skills, both of which are very hard. The land is filled with uncle Joe's who can get up at a party and do a card trick badly, there are far fewer that can or would even dare to get up at the same party and do stand up comedy. Are there those that can combine the two? Of course there are. The implication may be that comedy magicians are not fools, nor is the attempt to combine the two foolish, but that one should be aware of the seriousness of the endevour.

There are as Eugene says many rooms in magic and there is always room to improve.

Of course as Eugene playfully points out in the start of his column, this may only be my interpetaion of what I thought he said.

Larry
Larry Horowitz
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: L.A.


Return to Columns