Theoretical Pith

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
JHostler
Posts: 752
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Theoretical Pith

Postby JHostler » October 17th, 2021, 2:30 pm

I’ve been thinking about the modern concept and definition of “magic” – particularly given the trend toward characterizing our art/avocation as “honest” to some noteworthy degree. While this characterization is debatable (are engineering, songwriting, fundraising, or carpentry really any less honest??), the following sprang to mind as one extremely concise description:

Magic is the art and craft of simulating the impossible under impossible conditions.

Art AND craft because both elements are essential, and I have no interest in igniting the tedious art-versus-craft-versus-entertainment debate. But the extension – “…under possible conditions” – is where I think we most often miss the mark. Merely simulating the impossible is easy: a person is levitated onstage with a myriad of technical possibilities vis-à-vis hidden suspension/support. Three coins vanish from one hand and reappear in the other – with hands held awkwardly at eye level and that third finger oddly hooked. Taking this stuff a step further, I would argue, sets today’s standard. The same levitation done surrounded in the middle of a desert… Three Fly with unmistakably empty hands, examinable coins, and no joke transfers.

Just as the days of the Square Circle Production passed decades ago, so now has the notion that “because it can’t be seen, no one knows it’s there.” They do. A new day, a new challenge, and a lot more fun.

Or just a bunch of common sense thieving real estate from the forum.

YMMV
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » October 17th, 2021, 2:49 pm

Magic is the feeling one has when that which one knows is logically impossible occurs undeniably in their presence.

Magic is a feeling because it exists no where else beyond the internal realm of the viewer. It is an internal experience. And as the impossible does not actually occur, it is only as a result of their perceptions that the stimuli occurs. But it is more than the perception. It is more than the fooling or adequate production of an illusion. It is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has undeniable (cortical) occurred in their presence (the feeling is diluted by distance from the experience).

There are craft and art elements involved. But that leaves out the most important part

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jack Shalom » October 17th, 2021, 6:58 pm

It is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has undeniable (cortical) occurred in their presence (the feeling is diluted by distance from the experience).


If a tree levitates in the forest, and no one...

JHostler
Posts: 752
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby JHostler » October 17th, 2021, 7:15 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:Magic is the feeling one has when that which one knows is logically impossible occurs undeniably in their presence.

Magic is a feeling because it exists no where else beyond the internal realm of the viewer. It is an internal experience. And as the impossible does not actually occur, it is only as a result of their perceptions that the stimuli occurs. But it is more than the perception. It is more than the fooling or adequate production of an illusion. It is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has undeniable (cortical) occurred in their presence (the feeling is diluted by distance from the experience).

There are craft and art elements involved. But that leaves out the most important part


This is the end. My post references the means. Standards have changed as audiences have grown more sophisticated and jaded - that was the point.
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jonathan Townsend » October 17th, 2021, 9:03 pm

It's about practically eliciting that belief about a thing being impossible and practically eliciting the perception that the event as depicted could not have been accomplished by mundane means.

Funny thing about the coins across ; older versions use borrowed coins and a named number of those coins traveling from one person's hands to another person's hands.

It's your imaginary tree and forest. Imagine them on the moon or in space and you get falling and floating in silence. ;)

Edward Pungot
Posts: 922
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 1:55 am

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Edward Pungot » October 17th, 2021, 11:02 pm

Jon Racherbaumer has a radical take on future magicians. His challenging statements can be found in his On the Slant coulmn in the December 2010 issue of Genii Magazine (Vol. 73 #12). And as always, the two book recommendations accompanying the text are spot on with his bold claim. Art and science will show the way. But the why will be the the greatest challenge. As Racherbaumer writes, "We must convey the reason for our presence and the nature of what we are doing." Indeed, as Brad points out, "that leaves out the most important part."

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » October 18th, 2021, 2:12 am

JHostler wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:Magic is the feeling one has when that which one knows is logically impossible occurs undeniably in their presence.

Magic is a feeling because it exists no where else beyond the internal realm of the viewer. It is an internal experience. And as the impossible does not actually occur, it is only as a result of their perceptions that the stimuli occurs. But it is more than the perception. It is more than the fooling or adequate production of an illusion. It is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has undeniable (cortical) occurred in their presence (the feeling is diluted by distance from the experience).

There are craft and art elements involved. But that leaves out the most important part


This is the end. My post references the means. Standards have changed as audiences have grown more sophisticated and jaded - that was the point.


The threshold of the logically impossible moves with the awareness and standard of the audience. That is why a magician may not witness magic when a lay audience would - and interestingly, vice versa!

There are no ‘magic means’. There is only psychology, technology, manipulation, and aesthetics. Magic exists only in the end.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » October 18th, 2021, 2:17 am

Also - ‘under impossible conditions’ is a potentially dismissing phrase. What I think you mean to say is that the illusion created is impenetrable. There is no explanation for it.

When I think of conditions I think of the setting and context. And this is important. For magic to be perceived as magic it must be perceived as occurring in reality - under mundane conditions.

This is why special effects in a movie don’t produce the feeling of magic. Because the context/environment (film set) is known not to be a mundane environment (even if the setting of the film is portrayed as such).

Al Schneider
Posts: 230
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 8:55 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Al Schneider » October 18th, 2021, 6:40 am

JHostler
I am having trouble grasping the point of your initial post.
I understand your desire to avoid the, “art-versus-craft” thing.
But everyone seems to beat me over the head about magic as entertainment.
Do you think magic is other than entertainment?
I did not know magic as entertainment was in doubt.
I think I get magic is “simulating the impossible.”
I am not sure about, “under impossible conditions.”
Is that about, who’s fooling who?
Does that mean; you think you’re fooling people but you’re not.

I didn’t know Square Circle Production fell into disuse.

‘“because it can’t be seen, no one knows it’s there.”, ‘ resonates with me.
I got kicked off magic café for suggesting that.

“Or just a bunch of common sense thieving real estate from the forum.”
Is the point you are making common sense?
It doesn’t seem common.

“thieving real estate from the forum,” appears to be common.

Perhaps this has been explained.
Please explicate.
The single absolute truth is that we don't know.

JHostler
Posts: 752
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby JHostler » October 18th, 2021, 7:16 am

Al -

All magic (in our context) is entertainment to one extent or another... or should be. But not all entertainment is magic. I saw an older gentleman play banjo (I think) for 5 minutes during a close-up show/contest about 30 years ago. Not one bit of conjuring before stating "I entertained you - and that's what matters." If this were the case, we might as well just dance or sing during our shows. And now that I've written this... just wait for it.

Brad's explication of "impossible conditions" is consistent with what I meant. I try to write concisely, occasionally granting the audience a bit too much leeway in interpretation.

My primary point was simply that audiences have grown more sophisticated and technologically jaded, and we as practitioners must continue to up our game strategically - adopting conditions and settings that prohibit easy dismissal. Of course "upping the game" (in conjunction with other things) leads to a stronger internal "experience" of magic. That goes without saying.

As to there being no "means" to the "end" of magic (one of the comments above)... I have no response that wouldn't ban me from the forum!
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

Al Schneider
Posts: 230
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 8:55 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Al Schneider » October 18th, 2021, 10:15 am

JHostler
I think i was born with what you say.
And i have endured lip whips ever since.
I have recently discovered that magic that is discernable is entertaining.
Magic that has no explanation or possible explanation rises above entertainment.
It is entertaining but it is more.
The single absolute truth is that we don't know.

Tarotist
Posts: 1363
Joined: July 29th, 2021, 7:16 am
Favorite Magician: David Nixon

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Tarotist » October 18th, 2021, 12:46 pm

There was an old time magician by the name of Charles Waller who once wrote, "....so we resort to a process which we naively describe as 'making magic entertaining'---common sense would seem to suggest that if we succeed in 'making magic magical' we will provide entertainment enough"

I am not sure I agree with the gentleman but no doubt his statement will give comfort to those who find making magic entertaining a bit of a chore which they would rather not bother with. I would love to discuss the matter with Mr Waller but alas he is somewhat dead at the moment and appears to be unavailable as a result.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » October 18th, 2021, 2:39 pm

I said there are no magical means to the ends.

The means of producing magic are not magic. There is no magic before the experience of the logically impossible.

The means of producing magic are the same ends used by all artists, engineers, and people who have fingers.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » October 18th, 2021, 2:42 pm

Also. The square circle remains today as deceptive and as amazing as it always has been. The issue is taste. Less so I contend of the audience and more that of the magician.

Magicians may have abandoned the square circle because it no longer amuses them. It has lost its play value.

Most magicians I contend make choices based on their interests and pleasure, not their audience

(To be clear, that’s not accurate. The correct observation is that many magician’s audience - or the only one they really care about - is themselves).

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby DennisLisi » October 25th, 2021, 12:50 pm

The importance of having good acting skills is that you can persuade your audience that something is "impossible" when it's not.

A bad actor is going to have a hard time doing that.

If you can nake it seem impossible for your character to produce the effect, it is more amazing than if you were boast of supernatural ability.

The all-powerful wizard is an incredible meme these days. Everyone knows that magicians are basically hacks. Better to use that to your advantage, identify with the audience and concur with their common ideas as to what is impossible and what isn't. Deny your special knowledge. Then hit then with the surprise.

Just like a good comedian, lead up to the "punch line" with humble banter. Promise little, deliver much.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 25th, 2021, 2:45 pm

Magicians are not actors. They may use some skills an actor learns, but they are not actors.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby DennisLisi » October 25th, 2021, 3:03 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Magicians are not actors. They may use some skills an actor learns, but they are not actors.


Acting is an option for any magician. And many of the best have chosen it. What I'm saying is that creating a character that seems as incapable of achieving the effect as anyone else will cause the audience to identify with him or her. So when something "impossible" happens, it's almost as astonishing as if it had happened to them.

If you boast of superior knowledge, they are more likely to envy you than admire you. Like a haughty "expert" in any field.

There is a fine line between "manners" and "acting", and the success of any performance comes down to likability.

For most of us, that requires at least a bit of pretension.

JHostler
Posts: 752
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby JHostler » October 30th, 2021, 11:40 am

Just on the receiving end of Roberto Giobbi’s new “Sharing Sercrets,” I made a beeline to his take on Rick Johnsson’s infamous “Too Perfect Theory.”

Even a cursory review of TPT (as originally published in Hierophant) reveals a train wreck of incoherence – at best a half-considered, knee-jerk reaction to magical effects with only one layman-feasible solution. In fact, this is the simple root of the problem: Johnsson mischaracterized something legitimate - a “Single-Solution Theory” - as something nonsensical. Well-constructed magic (in the spirit of my first post) leaves no room for a solution – inclusive of those far-fetched or otherwise uninformed. What he describes as “too perfect” is itself imperfect in the sense that ANY methodological possibility (however inaccurate) arises in the audience’s mind. This is where his synapses skipped a beat.

If only Rick had honed his focus to the elimination of the “single solution” rather than its ham-handed replacement...

Which brings me back to Giobbi’s own evisceration of TPT. He postulates that “The problem here is not that the effect is too perfect or impossible, but that the connection between the effect and its method is too linear.” Interestingly, he taps what I believe to be the core of the problem in text surrounding this summation. Bringing “linearity” into the critique merely muddies waters he clarified elsewhere – almost playing into Johnsson’s disjointed thinking.

[Setting this quibble aside, the book is a great read. Giobbi is revered for good reason. Highly recommended.]
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27047
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 30th, 2021, 12:15 pm

Many excellent magicians subscribe to at least parts of the idea of the Too Perfect Theory.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

JHostler
Posts: 752
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby JHostler » October 30th, 2021, 12:32 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:Many excellent magicians subscribe to at least parts of the idea of the Too Perfect Theory.


As originally published, I think TPT applies more to devising "magician-foolers" (or perhaps magician-confusers) than astonishing 21st-century audiences. Rick was on to something - but IMO ended up conflating "single-solution" with "too perfect."
"The gnomes' ambition is handicapped by laziness." Adapted from Charles Bukowski, and clearly evident at http://www.gnominal.com

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby MagicbyAlfred » November 2nd, 2021, 7:09 am

Magic is the art of getting people to accept false premises in order to manipulate their logical reasoning processes, and thereby to perceive the seemingly impossible.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jack Shalom » November 2nd, 2021, 9:54 am

I like that. I would want to combine that with Brad's observation that magic is a feeling engendered within an observer when certain conditions created by the magician occur. So, to be long-winded:

"Magic is a feeling engendered within an observer when a magician persuades the observer to accept false premises which manipulates their logical reasoning processes so as to make the observer think s/he perceives the impossible."

MagicbyAlfred
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2015, 12:48 pm
Favorite Magician: Bill Malone
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby MagicbyAlfred » November 2nd, 2021, 12:18 pm

Jack Shalom wrote:I like that. I would want to combine that with Brad's observation that magic is a feeling engendered within an observer when certain conditions created by the magician occur. So, to be long-winded:

"Magic is a feeling engendered within an observer when a magician persuades the observer to accept false premises which manipulates their logical reasoning processes so as to make the observer think s/he perceives the impossible."


Excellent combination Jack!

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Greek mystery

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 2nd, 2021, 12:43 pm

Charisma exthymeme? i.e. the gift of a nonsense about reality. ;)

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » November 2nd, 2021, 12:50 pm

Don’t confuse methods with results

Magic results not from the manipulation of objects but from the manipulation of peoples perceptions. We manipulate their perceptions by leading them to draw CORRECT conclusions BASED on false premises.

This is the means of the production of the magical illusion however this means can produce other conditions that are NOT perceived as magic.

Magic is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has occurred undeniably in their presence.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jack Shalom » November 2nd, 2021, 2:32 pm

Magic is the feeling one has when that which they know to be logically impossible has occurred undeniably in their presence.


Yes, but without the performer's role in producing that feeling, there is nothing in that definition that distinguishes Our Magic from Harry Potter. And we could probably argue it, but I think there is a difference in the emotion that would be engendered by Harry Potter from that by Harry Blackstone, pleasant as it may be. In Our Magic, the frame of a theatrical context always surrounds what is observed.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 2nd, 2021, 4:09 pm

Our magic is presumed to act on or in our shared world - not a representation. The rules of the world get bent if not broken.
It has the intention of the performer, constraint to the occasion, and invitation by the audience.

They came to see a magic show
The magic is not expected to follow them home
The magic is expected to be kept in check by the performer/performance

Getting a joke about how we hold to our model of reality.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4546
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Brad Henderson » November 2nd, 2021, 4:56 pm

Jack - in the world of Harry Potter spells are not impossible and therefor don’t produce the feeling we call ‘magic’.

In the world of cinema, the context of the movie violates the logically impossible clause because we know that this isn’t occurring in our reality.

Jack Shalom
Posts: 1368
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Theoretical Pith

Postby Jack Shalom » November 2nd, 2021, 5:51 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Our magic is presumed to act on or in our shared world - not a representation. The rules of the world get bent if not broken.
It has the intention of the performer, constraint to the occasion, and invitation by the audience.

They came to see a magic show
The magic is not expected to follow them home
The magic is expected to be kept in check by the performer/performance


Jon, Brad, that is very true--Our Magic straddles two realities.

On the one hand, it is not a representation but appears to really act on our world--the water in the upside-down glass really does seem to defy gravity in our everyday world.

On the other hand, as Jon has pointed out before, we know what we are seeing is not, in fact, supernatural. If we did believe that, we'd run screaming from the theater when the woman is cut and restored.

Getting a joke about how we hold to our model of reality.


It's like the recent Al Schneider thread. We think we understand the reality behind the surface, only to realize that there are lots of interpretations of reality consistent with the appearance of the surface. That can be an unnerving realization to say the least. But ultimately, that may be THE major effect of Our Magic.


Return to “General”