The Word Magic

[Al Schneider]

Would someone define the word magic for me.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Would someone define the word magic for me.

Before I take a crack at offering my own subjective definition, I will preface it by saying that there are probably at least as many different definitions of magic as there are magicians. OK, here goes:

Magic is the art of creating false premises in order to manipulate the logical reasoning processes of the spectators, and thus create the illusion of an occurrence that appears to be impossible in light of their preconceptions and/or under natural laws as they understand them to be. I would add that the essence of a good magic trick is the creation of astonishment and surprise.

[I.M. Magician]

How about…

Something taking place which our empirical experiences tell us is not supposed to be possible under normal circumstances.

[Dave Le Fevre]

Magic is the art of creating false premises in order to etc

I'd say that that's definition of conjuring, not of magic.

[Richard Kaufman]

Making people happy.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Difficult as folks around here don't want their private narrative, everyday social narrative, or larger historical narrative to include "intention as cause". Destiny, fate, fortune and luck... are okay but we don't consider karma a branch of physics around here.

We are given license to present "intention as cause" around here within context of entertainment. Others are given license to use that notion in non-entertainment context.

[Tom Frame]

“If you take any activity, any art, any discipline, any skill, take it and push it as far as it will go, push it beyond where it has ever been before, push it to the wildest edge of edges, then you force it into the realm of magic.”

-Tom Robbins

[Tom Frame]

But Robbins also concedes that, “Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast beef.”

[I.M. Magician]

Talk about opening a can of worms.

[Tom Stone]

Would someone define the word magic for me.

That is quite tricky. I've tried for ages, and no matter what kind of definition I've come up with, it still doesn't take long before I find some piece that falls outside the definition. So far, "I know it when I see it" is the only definition that always hold water.

However, it seems like a human operator need to be present to bring about the desired reaction. My friend Johan Ståhl once arranged an exhibit with a few automatic items, like a drawer in a writer's desk that worked like a Drawer Box, on/off automatically. The reactions were vastly different when the visitors tried the drawer on their own, compared to when Johan simply stood beside it. The same with Mark Setteducati's book "The Magic Show". A layperson working the tricks of the book alone doesn't react the same way, as they do when a magician is sitting next to them. It seems that for "magic" to occur, there need to be a human present to attribute the experience to.

It also seem to require a certain amount of prerequisite knowledge on the spectator's part. Doing mental magic for, let's say New Age believers, often get no reactions beside mild smiles and gentle nodding, as it more confirm what they assume is the natural order of things. For it to seem "magic" that fire comes out of your hands, the audience must know that fire doesn't usually behave like that.

Jim Steinmeyer once said that magic is a "cat and mouse game", and I think that it is an aspect that also need to be present. We all experience loads of seemingly "impossible" things each day, without giving it a second thought, because we just assume that if we looked at it closer, we would find it to be ordinary. If you casually vanish a coin or change denomination of a bill for someone who doesn't know you are a magician, in a context outside a performance, they will often show very little reactions, as they'll assume you accidentally dropped the coin when they wasn't paying attention, or that they just saw wrong. It seems that for "magic" to occur, we must first set up the roles of "magician" and "spectator" where it is clear that the task of the former is to try to decieve and the role of the latter is to be decieved regardless of any attempts to avoid deception.

[Peter Ross]

It seems that for "magic" to occur, we must first set up the roles of "magician" and "spectator" where it is clear that the task of the former is to try to decieve and the role of the latter is to be decieved regardless of any attempts to avoid deception.

Tell that to Michael Carbonaro

[Jonathan Townsend]

It seems that for "magic" to occur, we must first set up the roles of "magician" and "spectator" where it is clear that the task of the former is to try to decieve and the role of the latter is to be decieved regardless of any attempts to avoid deception.

Tell that to Michael Carbonaro

Did Michael Carbonaro discuss his approach to presenting magic? If so, what did he suggest?

The Tim Robbins lines are directed at the reader and not our community; eliciting the notion for the reader.

For that matter the Clarke line folks trot out for reference is about storytelling - which might be a good place to look for distinctions between magic and other means of getting to goals.

What do folks think about the Robert-Houdin clever devices plus trickery approach? The magic being understood as something beyond what's plausible for a device.

[Tom Stone]

It seems that for "magic" to occur, we must first set up the roles of "magician" and "spectator" where it is clear that the task of the former is to try to decieve and the role of the latter is to be decieved regardless of any attempts to avoid deception.

Tell that to Michael Carbonaro

In many Carbonaro segments I've seen, the onlookers doesn't percieve any magic effect. Like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2XsWM2uhyE

[Peter Ross]

Correct. So what Carbonaro is doing would not be classified as magic according to your statement (which I agree with).

If the "spectator" is unaware there is a magician performing magic to them, is it still a magic performance?

[Jonathan Townsend]

@Peter, in other contexts such could be looked at as a short con, or the demonstration of a charlatan, ... not our craft of entertainment.

[Chris Aguilar]

Have honestly never understood the fascination with this (See Paul Wilson's boring "Our Magic" Documentary, where he wastes potentially great interviews with stellar talent by forcing them to answer this somewhat vague, kinda useless question.)

[Peter Ross]

In regards to how "magic" is defined, I think Tom Stone bringing up this point is relevant and interesting.

If you do not consider the discussion about magic without the magician vague and useless, there is more on it in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53440&p=367163&hilit=Carbonaro#p367163

I wonder how David Regal views the show in the context of traditionally defined magic.

[chetday]

Magic - Noun - Any sudden and often unexpected surprise that makes you smile or laugh, even when your jaw just dropped practically to your knees.

[I.M. Magician]

Have honestly never understood the fascination with this (See Paul Wilson's boring "Our Magic" Documentary, where he wastes potentially great interviews with stellar talent by forcing them to answer this somewhat vague, kinda useless question.)

I have to agree with that Chris! I found it silly to waste time asking that question. And, of course, everyone felt the need to come up with a creative answer.

After I posted my response here, I was sorry I even bothered. What’s the point? Maybe to analyze the heck out of the word.

Does it matter how it is defined? I say no. Magic has its benefits without the need to define it. Just perform it or watch it for goodness sake!

Thank you very much.

[Joe Lyons]

Writing clarifies thought.

Defining what you practice, if only for yourself, could only aid your development.

[katterfelt0]

Writing clarifies thought.

Defining what you practice, if only for yourself, could only aid your development.

Exactly. When I look at a routine I might want to add, I consider (among other things) whether it fits my definition of magic (Matrix) or not (gambling routines).

[Peter Ross]

Sorry, one more point about The Carbonbaro Effect as it relates to a definition of magic - it occurred to me that the people watching the "show" from their TVs are the true spectators, per Tom Stone's requirement. We know we're watching a magician perform a trick, waiting to be amazed and not knowing when it's going to happen, and then being delighted (per Richard Kaufman) at the effect. It's a magic show for us, but arguably a prank for the person it's being performed on.

[Paco Nagata]

My try:

Magic "is" something that can't be, which causes interest and fun to everyone.

[katterfelt0]

My try:
Magic "is" something that can't be, which causes interest and fun to everyone.

.

Paco, it's not just your try, it's your success. We each must define magic for ourselves, should we feel so inclined. You did just that

[Paco Nagata]

My try:
Magic "is" something that can't be, which causes interest and fun to everyone.

.

Paco, it's not just your try, it's your success. We each must define magic for ourselves, should we feel so inclined. You did just that

Thanks Jim!

Teying to define MAGIC is something like trying to define LOVE.

[Al Schneider]

Magic is a class of events of which there is no possible explanation.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Magic is a class of events of which there is no possible explanation.

How does one distinguish an event as magical as opposed to any other member of that set of inexplicable events?

[katterfelt0]

Magic is a class of events of which there is no possible explanation.

How does one distinguish an event as magical as opposed to any other member of that set of inexplicable events?

IMHO, magic is done in a theatrical context. Other inexplicable events are outside that realm. I have that distinction in my personal definition of magic.

[Eric Chico]

The feeling one gets when that which one knows is impossible occurs undeniably in your presence. - Brad Henderson

An astonishing theatrical event for which there is seemingly no logical explanation and for which no rationalized explanation satisfies. - Michael Close

The aesthetic exploration of mystery.
- Max Maven

[Al Schneider]

Communication depends on common understanding. If there is no agreement on a subject at hand, the communication between terminals is, at best, garbled. My initial question was to determine who might have something in common with my understanding of what magic is. As has been pointed out, there is no wrong answer to the question. However, the answers reveal that there is little consensus with my view. Hence, I am wasting my time here.

[Tom Stone]

As has been pointed out, there is no wrong answer to the question. However, the answers reveal that there is little consensus with my view. Hence, I am wasting my time here.

Fortunately, you are not wasting our time.
It is an important question. But I think its importance is proportional to one's desire to create new works.
I also think it might be more important to invest the effort to find an answer, than to be served someone else's answer. The process is also the reward.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Putting all inexplicable phenomena into a class is ... implicitly done with the label "inexplicable". Putting magic into that class is sensible. It remains to distinguish magic from any other member of that class.

[Michael Rubinstein]

Magic is a sense of wonder that one feels after experiencing something that can not be explained by the laws of nature or logic.

[Tarotist]

Are we talking about real magic or pretend magic?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Are we talking about real magic or pretend magic?

That's a tough one. ++ for the insight Tarotist.

[Tarotist]

Are we talking about real magic or pretend magic?

That's a tough one. ++ for the insight Tarotist.

Actually I have been giving the matter some serious thought. As a result I have come to the conclusion that real magic does not exist. However pretend magic most certainly does. However you will find that on the Magic Cafe.

[Al Schneider]

Does anyone care how the audience defines magic?

[Richard Kaufman]

It would be difficult to ascertain how they describe magic, since they are unreliable narrators.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Does anyone care how the audience defines magic?

Their beliefs/expectations - yes. Their language if asked - not likely.

[Jonathan Townsend]

It would be difficult to ascertain how they describe magic, since they are unreliable narrators.

The notion of agency seems pretty common when folks describe magic. i.e. some agency acted such that something is what it would not have otherwise been.