DelGaudio Sez

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 4:14 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:If you ask a million people who is the greater artist, Bach or Tommy Wonder. They will all point to Bach.

Bach is as highly rated in his field as Tommy Wonder is in ours.

So - why should this be the case?

Why on earth would you ask a million people? What relevance do they have?

Do you really suggest that Tommy went about his work with less fervor and passion than what Bach went about his? Or do you mean that Bach was a better magician than what Tommy was a musician? Or... I don't even understand why you bring a musician into a discussion that isn't about music.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 4:17 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:So - I hope I don't come across as disrespectful to him.

Not at all - unfortunately. :-)
If this really is what you think, then I expect you to be passionate about it. Don't hold back. Be disrespectful, because trust me - I don't hold back. :-)

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 4:20 pm

Art is about communicating a vision and moving people.

Some arts are more suited for that than others.

That is my take. And one way of showing that is pointing to the fact that everybody (including magicians) finds music more moving than magic.

Not all art forms are equal.

Is that a controversial statement now? I just wonder if some magicians are scared to embrace magic for what it is - as opposed to trying to dress it up as something else. To me - that is disrespectful to the true nature of magic.

Joe

PS Tom - I am the fat guy who sat next to you at the Lubor Fiedler lecture in London. lol

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 4:29 pm

There are two active threads at the moment.

And maybe I can combine them with this question.

Did Dai Vernon see magic as an art?

My sense (having studied everything he has in print) is that he didn't.

Dai Vernon loved magic. But he loved magic for what it could offer. And I really don't think the idea of art (ala what you might find in great music or poetry) was ever uppermost in his mind.

Vernon was a thoughtful person with an appreciation for real art. And I don't think he ever made a claim for magic to be ranked alongside the likes of poetry, painting and music.

Indeed - when looking back on his life in magic - Vernon said his greatest achievement was in never having to work for a living.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 4:31 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:Art is about communicating a vision and moving people.

No it is not. That's a consumer's view of the world. That's a fastfood view.

Art is an approach to the work at hand, nothing more. Sometimes the work at hand is about expressing something, which at times might be intended to communicate something - and at other times just be an expression made for its own sake. Moving people is not a requirement in that.

That is my take. And one way of showing that is pointing to the fact that everybody (including magicians) finds music more moving than magic.


And? Likewise, a hamburger is tastier than a blues song. A joke is funnier than a knitted sweater. Why do you compare two different things based on aspects from just one of them?

PS Tom - I am the fat guy who sat next to you at the Lubor Fiedler lecture in London. lol

Ah - there were plenty of fat dudes there, but I remember a friendly face next to me. Hello again! :-)

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 4:41 pm

You are pushing into areas which I have often wondered about.

Is it possible to have art without an audience to experience it?

Is the process enough - even if it goes forever unseen?

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 4:51 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:You are pushing into areas which I have often wondered about.

Is it possible to have art without an audience to experience it?

Is the process enough - even if it goes forever unseen?

Let's take music, since you seem to like that area.

Art is an approach to the work at hand.
Let's say a musician create a tune for the sake of the tune itself.
And now you have that tune on a CD next to your stereo - but it is not playing.
That means you can't hear the tune.
Does that mean that the musician haven't expressed anything?
That his work is something else than "art" until the moment you put the CD in the player?
The "worth" of that musician's work is depending on whether you decide to play that song now or not?

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5283
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Bill Mullins » November 3rd, 2014, 4:58 pm

Seriously, if magic no longer fools you, you aren't watching good enough magicians and good enough magic.

We had an IBM Ring meeting last night, and I wasn't fooled very much. That's not why I go.
But I also watched the Peter Pelikaan video that was in a recent Forum thread. Fooled the crap out of me – I have absolutely no idea. I wish I could see it in person. Likewise most of the stuff that is in Lubor Fiedler's videos.

At the Genii Bash, I was consistently and regularly fooled. Samelson, Engbloom, Maven, Tamariz, Giobbi . . . I hesitate listing names because I know I'm leaving out some. If you watch these guys and know how they accomplish everything they do, you are much more well-read and perceptive than I am (and are most people who were laymen and get involved in magic – I'm square in the middle of the demographic you referred to).

Joe Mckay wrote:The funny thing is that this point of view [magic is not art] was completely unremarkable and commonplace 50-100 years ago. But in recent decades - there has being a fad to try and find meaning in magic.

Read Downs's introduction from The Art of Magic (good title, that) from a century ago and tell me that he didn't distinguish between artistic and hack magic. The discussion was old then.

Penn and Teller do it best. I have seen most of their work - and very little of it is moving or truly artistic.

Damn, you are jaded. Their Constitution routine is Art with a capital A. The bit where they are handcuffed on a park bench. They have stuff to say, and they say it with magic. If that isn't art, what is?

And art . . . .
You want to be an artist? Tell me a story. You could use magic, a trumpet, ballet, black and white photographs, oily pigments and canvas, a stick drawing picture in the dirt, I don't care. Engage me. Tell me a truth about yourself, and let magic be the vehicle you use to do it. When I see a show, or even a routine, by a really good magician, I've seen more than tricks. Now I know something more about them and the world and me. That's art.

GlennWest
Posts: 59
Joined: April 11th, 2014, 6:05 pm
Favorite Magician: Tyler Wilson

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby GlennWest » November 3rd, 2014, 5:19 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:You are pushing into areas which I have often wondered about.

Is it possible to have art without an audience to experience it?

Is the process enough - even if it goes forever unseen?


Art doesn't require an audience.

Magic does.

If magic doesn't fool, then it isn't magic.

No audience, no one to fool.

Unless, like some here, you are fooling yourself.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25236
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Richard Kaufman » November 3rd, 2014, 5:44 pm

I've never heard a nihilist describe his or her outlook as "a fun view to have." That goes against the definition of nihilism.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5283
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Bill Mullins » November 3rd, 2014, 5:45 pm

Joe Mckay wrote: Did Dai Vernon see magic as an art?
My sense (having studied everything he has in print) is that he didn't.


Quotes from The Vernon Touch:

"Pavel . . . personifies the Art of Magic." p. 141

"Fred Kaps is a consummate artist on stage or close-up." p. 168

"Comedy is a fine art, as is magic." p. 200

"You must understand the Art in magic." p. 298

"A young chap from Sweden . . . did a truly artistic and enjoyable act." p. 359

He quoted Ottokar Fischer: "No more artistic and brilliant phenomena in the field of modern
drawing room conjuring in general and card tricks in particular have ever been presented
than those which originated in the mind of the genial amateur prestidigitator Johann N.
Hofzinser of Vienna." p. 364

"Magicians want to see artistic technique in an entertaining manner . . ." p. 436

"Every move, every gesture that [the Pendragons] make is highly artistic and done with a decided flair." p. 452

He said that Erdnase was an "outstanding contribution to the art of artistic card handling." p. 463

The book is full instances of Vernon referring to magic as an art, its practitioners as artists, etc., etc.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 5:51 pm

GlennWest wrote:Art doesn't require an audience.

Magic does.

If magic doesn't fool, then it isn't magic.

No audience, no one to fool.

Unless, like some here, you are fooling yourself.

...hypothetically, let's say an unpublished parlor card routine by Alex Elmsley is found. Something he created but never performed, that was forgotten about for 40 years. After being found, it is tried out, and is instantly recognized as a masterpiece.
Does that mean that the piece wasn't a magic piece when it was conceived or for the coming 40 years? It was neither "art" nor magic until some random performer showed it to someone else?

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 6:05 pm

Thanks for the quotes, Bill.

Of course - Vernon refers to the art of magic. But I still suspect he would not rank a great magician alongside a great musician. Since the great musician is capable of more beautiful art than the great musician.

A piece by Bach will always be more powerful than any magic trick. In my opinion - at least. And who knows what Vernon would have said?

As for being a nihilist. It is great. It gets portrayed as a depressing point of view in films and so on. But it isn't really. It is quite liberating.

I find this quote from Douglas Adams is a good metaphor for how I see humanity.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”


Some may find this worldview depressing. But even if it was - it wouldn't change the likelihood of it being correct.

Personally - I think most of the problems in the world come not from lack of meaning. But from people trying to impose the worldview that provides meaning to them onto others.
Last edited by Joe Mckay on November 3rd, 2014, 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 6:07 pm

I think Tom makes an interesting point about a hypothetical "lost" Alex Elmsley trick. But we are getting into such arcane waters that I have trouble reasoning my way through them.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 3rd, 2014, 6:42 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:Thanks for the quotes, Bill.

Of course - Vernon refers to the art of magic. But I still suspect he would not rank a great magician alongside a great musician. Since the great musician is capable of more beautiful art than the great musician.

A piece by Bach will always be more powerful than any magic trick. In my opinion - at least. And who knows what Vernon would have said?

You still compare two different things on criterias chosen from just one of them.

What Bach wrote was really bad compared to what the artists within our field creates. I've never seen anyone drop their jaw in surprise and become silent from a Bach tune. And Mozart's work is plain ugly compared with, for example, SEAK by Max Maven - which is one of the most beautiful pieces I've ever come across.
That's a very sound and reasonable opinion that I'm more than entitled to - had I been thinking something else, I would have done that instead, because why would I work with something that is less? Music is flat and shallow in comparison to magic, and can't even begin to compare - that's not an opinion but a fact.

If you sincerely think otherwise, then you are in the wrong field. For your sake, you should cease magic and focus on music instead, because you seem to understand that field a lot better than this one.

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 3rd, 2014, 7:05 pm

'SEAK' is a great trick.

I think we can both agree why magic is great and enjoyable.

But for some reason it doesn't strike me as being art.

I guess it comes down to how you define art?

Maybe this debate is starting to go round in circles...

Which is fine by me - since my goal in this thread is to speak up for those who are a little skeptical about this need to try and shove meaning and art into magic.

I think magic can be wonderful just as it is.

GlennWest
Posts: 59
Joined: April 11th, 2014, 6:05 pm
Favorite Magician: Tyler Wilson

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby GlennWest » November 3rd, 2014, 7:09 pm

Tom Stone wrote:It was neither "art" nor magic until some random performer showed it to someone else?


Right.

Potential magic, but not magic.

Magic takes place in the mind of the observer and requires an observer who is not the doer.

No external observer, no magic.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25236
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Richard Kaufman » November 3rd, 2014, 8:06 pm

Art is designated by the viewer, not the creator.

How do you know something is Art? You know it when you see it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Jeffrey Korst
Posts: 83
Joined: March 22nd, 2008, 3:07 am
Location: SF Bay Area
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Jeffrey Korst » November 3rd, 2014, 8:50 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:So - basically - in defending the view that magic is art.

You are saying anything can be art?

Well - why not just remove this word from the dictionary since it obviously doesn't mean anything.

(snip)

A lot of magicians wonder if magic is an art? Yet nobody in the fields of painting, poetry, film or music does.

Why?

Because the answer is obvious.

The fact that there is even a debate in the world of magic shows that there is a good chance that it really doesn't qualify as art. And this is a viewpoint that most laypeople would agree with as well.


Ah, but folks in other fields do wonder. According to the art critic at the San Francisco Chronicle, this is art:

Image

This, on the other hand, is not art at all, but merely craft:

Image


Or in music, Bach is art. John Cage is just noise. (or the other way around, depending on your age and point of view)

David Mamet, in his book, "3 Uses of the Knife," writes:

"Artists don't wonder, 'What is it good for?' They aren't driven to 'create art,' or to 'help people,' or to 'make money.' They are driven to lessen the burden of the unbearable disparity between their conscious and unconscious minds, and so to achieve peace."

Chris Aguilar
Posts: 1837
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Chris Aguilar » November 3rd, 2014, 10:39 pm

They are driven to lessen the burden of the unbearable disparity between their conscious and unconscious minds, and so to achieve peace."

What a load of pretentious horse sh/t.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25236
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Richard Kaufman » November 3rd, 2014, 11:32 pm

hahahaha. :lol:
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 4th, 2014, 12:51 am

Joe Mckay wrote:'SEAK' is a great trick.

I think we can both agree why magic is great and enjoyable.

But for some reason it doesn't strike me as being art.

I guess it comes down to how you define art?

Yes, exactly! If you define it only as "something that sounds nice", you exclude most of the world for no valid reason... It is like you are arguing that paintings are artless, because the paintings never sound nice.

Art is simply an approach to the work at hand. The driving force. What you are saying when you say that SEAK isn't art is: -"Max Maven invest far less passion, fervor and thought into his work, than what any music composer do with their work."

These days it is all meta anyway, so the concept of "art" as an entity of its own is even more pointless than usual.

Richard wrote:
Art is designated by the viewer, not the creator.
How do you know something is Art? You know it when you see it.

There are 'silent' prefixes in that. Written out:
Commercially successful art is designated by the viewer, not the creator.
How do you know something is popular Art? You know it when you see it.

User avatar
Q. Kumber
Posts: 1648
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Manchester, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Q. Kumber » November 4th, 2014, 4:37 am

I don't believe I'm familiar with Max Maven's SEAK.

Any clues, please?

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1309
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Tom Stone » November 4th, 2014, 6:58 am

Q. Kumber wrote:I don't believe I'm familiar with Max Maven's SEAK.

Any clues, please?

In Thabbatical:
http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Thabbatical

Its structure is as beautiful and amazing as Tommy Wonder's 3'rd Nest of Boxes.

User avatar
Q. Kumber
Posts: 1648
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Manchester, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Q. Kumber » November 4th, 2014, 7:22 am

Thank you Tom.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8209
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 4th, 2014, 8:09 am

A philosophy 101 prank which goes meaningless when examined by "and how would you know that..."? Early twentieth century discoveries in physics and mathematics rendered the entire infinite precision/complete/provable/knowable/objective/subjective matter political. Kipling's Just So Stories begat Borges' Fictions. Clickbait.

okay back to art. artisans do art. Capital "A" art is an academic matter - barely distinct from its economics and politics. R. Mott's fountain is not the Pierian Spring.

Speaking only for myself - craft is worth the fuss. Whether it's getting a story scripted into working form or a prop into working condition or just finding the most magic in an existing routine as a "just so" exercise. Craft.

There are plenty of fine books on art history. Maybe one of them would work as our Book of Sand for the magic shop.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2826
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Matthew Field » November 4th, 2014, 8:31 am

At the risk of doing something I will later regret, I'll mention that in my patter for a trick I perform (Pre-Prefiguration by Mark Elsdon) I say that, for me, magic has three elements: surprise, entertainment and inexplicability. Surprise alone is just "Boo!". Entertainment alone is simply a good joke. And inexplicability alone is just reading a book on nuclear physics. So here's what we'll do . . .

I really do believe that magic has those three attributes combined. And the best magic can transform into art.

Made by an artist, Jonathan, not an artisan.

Matt Field

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8209
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 4th, 2014, 8:44 am

Matthew Field wrote:...
Made by an artist, Jonathan, not an artisan.


Create the works and let them speak for themselves. "artist" is a modern problem in the arts - craftsmen with pretensions.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby mrgoat » November 4th, 2014, 9:06 am

what is art?

Anthony Vinson
Posts: 295
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 12:34 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Anthony Vinson » November 4th, 2014, 10:09 am

What is art? Who can say? I have a friend who considers Ayn Rand’s novels art. Seriously. He finds them beautiful and moving and inspirational. He means it. Personally I think they are overwritten, under-edited, self-indulgent bovine feces. Who’s right? We both are.

It’s really a matter of context, intent, and individual preference. I like Rush – the band not the blowhard. Many people disdain them. Who’s right?

Doug Henning famously convinced the Canada Council for the Arts that magic was, at least in the context presented, art. Were they right? Maybe.

In the right hands magic can be artistic, beautiful, moving, and inspirational. Does that make it art? Maybe.

We can quibble, but to what end? Ultimately we should all pursue our passions for magic with respect for the craft, the audience, and other magicians. Art will out. Or not.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4136
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Brad Henderson » November 4th, 2014, 11:54 am

Joe.

your problem assumes knowledge and experience on the part of the observer. If the only music you had were aware of in life was 1970's MUZAK, would you feel that music moved people more than, well, anything?

Most people who see magic get the Muzak equivalent - watered down impersonations of great work pioneered by others.

If you only ever heard Muzak, what do you think Bach would sound like to you?

If judging it by Muzak standards, awful.

In fact, ask many young people raised on pop music what they think about Bach, or Coltrane. Generally they hate it. (Having a masters degree in music education and having done advanced graduate work in music history I assure you this is the standard response).

our knowledge and context influences what we value. If we believe the only purpose for music is to dance to it, then Beethoven and bee bop are worthless. You are placing functional roles onto art for which there is no basis to apply them.

You also assume that Bach was an artist. Here is where your lack of understanding of art betrays you. The idea of Artist as we think of today, especially in music; is a concept which originated around the time of Beethoven. Prior to that musicians were craftsman. Bach wrote not to express himself, primarily, but because he was paid to write music for the king's dances and chorales to accompany church services. It wasn't an issue of 'conveying a meaning'. It was doing a job. Michaelangelo wasn't trying to reveal part of his soul. He was there to collect a check - albeit by doing masterful work.

So you are attempting to force a measure of value onto works that were never intended to have that value.

Which leads to the real issue: intention.

John cage (at the same time as Duchamp in the world of visual art) asked these questions "what is art?" "why is art?"

I'll save you decades of art history and skip to the conclusions; the intention of the artist and the audience are critical to the condition of art.

As cage posed: if a musician writes a piece that requires the lid of a trash can to be dropped at a certain time, we would agree that the composer is attempting to create a work of art. but what of the trash can lid which falls in the alley? Sonically it is the same. So what is the difference? intent.

music then is sound organized in time. Nothing more. Cage famously wrote a piece where the pianist opened the lid of his instrument and sat still for four minutes and thirty three seconds. While some call this piece silence, they are wrong. The music is that which one hears during that time - be it shuffling feet, coughing, or a falling trash can lid.

The composer has organized those sounds by bounding then with time. of course, so does the listener who can do this without the need for the composer. Or do they become the composer? Is music played for oneself not music?

of course, none of this says anything about art. Because art is not sounds organized in time. Art requires the intention to convey a feelingful response. Muzak is functional. It is not trying to move the audience,

Not all music is art because not all music was intended to be art.

likewise not all magic is art because not all magic is intended to be art.

So to compare one to another, and to compare a phenom such as Bach whose work is so masterful it still manages to move without intent, gets us no where.

art in all genres has a history, a context, and a syntax. If you don't not understand these elements you are unlikely to be moved. not from failure of the art or the artist, but from ones own ignorance.

I remember as a kid seeing modern art and 'not getting it'. Now I can spend hours in the Moma or sit mesmerized in front of a single Jackson pollack. The art pieces have not changed. I have.

What do they say, art is like a mirror? When an ass stares within....

I apologize for the provacative saying. I do not know that you are an ass. But it is clear you lack a lot of information about art, history of art, theory of art and the possibilities one can achieve via magical performances.

You have been taught that magic is the method. And if that's all magic is, I would agree with that which you have written.

but there is much more and many of us have, by virtue of work or luck, seen it first hand.

if one human being can look into the eyes of another and say words that moves them - which we know to be the essence, a regularly occurring occurance of human contact, then why cannot a human look into the eyes of someone and say or do something moving in which a seeming impossibility occurs simultaneously?

the problem isn't with the seeming impossibility which is occurring. The problem is what the human looking into your eyes choses to do with that opportunity.

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2826
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Matthew Field » November 4th, 2014, 12:28 pm

Well said, Brad.

Matt Field

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 4th, 2014, 1:22 pm

lol @ Jackson Pollock et al

All of modern art was an unwitting stooge for the CIA during the Cold War.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I guess you don't have to be magician to get away with tricking people.

GlennWest
Posts: 59
Joined: April 11th, 2014, 6:05 pm
Favorite Magician: Tyler Wilson

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby GlennWest » November 4th, 2014, 1:30 pm

Joe Mckay wrote:lol @ Jackson Pollock et al

All of modern art was an unwitting stooge for the CIA during the Cold War.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I guess you don't have to be magician to get away with tricking people.


Ha!

Poor Brad. He tries so hard.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4136
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Brad Henderson » November 4th, 2014, 1:34 pm

it's helpful to read past the first line of an article:

"Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA."

of course you leave out Picasso, Duchamp, Freud, Mondrian, burguois, Braque ....

it helps if you know something about which you are trying to speak. pretending it does not exist is usually a poor stance from which to begins one's pontificating on a subject.

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby mrgoat » November 4th, 2014, 1:44 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:Joe.

your problem assumes knowledge and experience on the part of the observer. If the only music you had were aware of in life was 1970's MUZAK, would you feel that music moved people more than, well, anything?

Most people who see magic get the Muzak equivalent - watered down impersonations of great work pioneered by others.

If you only ever heard Muzak, what do you think Bach would sound like to you?

If judging it by Muzak standards, awful.

In fact, ask many young people raised on pop music what they think about Bach, or Coltrane. Generally they hate it. (Having a masters degree in music education and having done advanced graduate work in music history I assure you this is the standard response).

our knowledge and context influences what we value. If we believe the only purpose for music is to dance to it, then Beethoven and bee bop are worthless. You are placing functional roles onto art for which there is no basis to apply them.

You also assume that Bach was an artist. Here is where your lack of understanding of art betrays you. The idea of Artist as we think of today, especially in music; is a concept which originated around the time of Beethoven. Prior to that musicians were craftsman. Bach wrote not to express himself, primarily, but because he was paid to write music for the king's dances and chorales to accompany church services. It wasn't an issue of 'conveying a meaning'. It was doing a job. Michaelangelo wasn't trying to reveal part of his soul. He was there to collect a check - albeit by doing masterful work.

So you are attempting to force a measure of value onto works that were never intended to have that value.

Which leads to the real issue: intention.

John cage (at the same time as Duchamp in the world of visual art) asked these questions "what is art?" "why is art?"

I'll save you decades of art history and skip to the conclusions; the intention of the artist and the audience are critical to the condition of art.

As cage posed: if a musician writes a piece that requires the lid of a trash can to be dropped at a certain time, we would agree that the composer is attempting to create a work of art. but what of the trash can lid which falls in the alley? Sonically it is the same. So what is the difference? intent.

music then is sound organized in time. Nothing more. Cage famously wrote a piece where the pianist opened the lid of his instrument and sat still for four minutes and thirty three seconds. While some call this piece silence, they are wrong. The music is that which one hears during that time - be it shuffling feet, coughing, or a falling trash can lid.

The composer has organized those sounds by bounding then with time. of course, so does the listener who can do this without the need for the composer. Or do they become the composer? Is music played for oneself not music?

of course, none of this says anything about art. Because art is not sounds organized in time. Art requires the intention to convey a feelingful response. Muzak is functional. It is not trying to move the audience,

Not all music is art because not all music was intended to be art.

likewise not all magic is art because not all magic is intended to be art.

So to compare one to another, and to compare a phenom such as Bach whose work is so masterful it still manages to move without intent, gets us no where.

art in all genres has a history, a context, and a syntax. If you don't not understand these elements you are unlikely to be moved. not from failure of the art or the artist, but from ones own ignorance.

I remember as a kid seeing modern art and 'not getting it'. Now I can spend hours in the Moma or sit mesmerized in front of a single Jackson pollack. The art pieces have not changed. I have.

What do they say, art is like a mirror? When an ass stares within....

I apologize for the provacative saying. I do not know that you are an ass. But it is clear you lack a lot of information about art, history of art, theory of art and the possibilities one can achieve via magical performances.

You have been taught that magic is the method. And if that's all magic is, I would agree with that which you have written.

but there is much more and many of us have, by virtue of work or luck, seen it first hand.

if one human being can look into the eyes of another and say words that moves them - which we know to be the essence, a regularly occurring occurance of human contact, then why cannot a human look into the eyes of someone and say or do something moving in which a seeming impossibility occurs simultaneously?

the problem isn't with the seeming impossibility which is occurring. The problem is what the human looking into your eyes choses to do with that opportunity.


Have I told you lately that I love you?

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 4th, 2014, 1:47 pm

I am not a fan of modern art. So the article above did tickle me when I stumbled across it a few years ago.

Still - I do like some of the conceptual pieces. For some reason - the thinking behind them reminds me of a good magic trick.

One of my favourite pieces is 'A Hundred Years' by Damian Hirst.

http://www.damienhirst.com/a-hundred-years

But I really cannot see the point of stuff like Jackson Pollock and the rest of it.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8209
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Jonathan Townsend » November 4th, 2014, 2:06 pm

Pierian Springs
Duchamp fountain
amusing
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
Brad Jeffers
Posts: 995
Joined: April 11th, 2008, 5:52 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Brad Jeffers » November 4th, 2014, 3:01 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:Which leads to the real issue: intention.
...the intention of the artist and the audience are critical to the condition of art.


Note to artists ...

Please take a few moments to write on the back of the canvas, what your intentions were when doing this particular painting.

i.e. "I was attempting to appeal to, and connect with, human emotion." or, "I was trying to make enough money to buy a Martha Stewart food processor."

This will greatly facilitate future generations in their efforts to determine whether or not, what you have created is art.

Joe Mckay
Posts: 1639
Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
Location: Durham, England

Re: DelGaudio Sez

Postby Joe Mckay » November 4th, 2014, 3:04 pm

My least favourite modern art is the crap that repeats the Duchamp fountain (ie urinal) joke - by just using it in a new context.

Boring.

Yes - we get it - anything can be art. You don't need to can up your sh/t and place it in a art gallery to keep on repeating the same point that Duchamp made decades earlier. I went round an art gallery once - and most of the modern art was a rip off of the Duchamp fountain gag.


Return to “Buzz”