|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
There is a novel available on lulu.com titled "Two Cabins" that has some interesting sections on magic as a performance art and the affect it can have on observers and the performer.
Two of the main characters are magicians and their experiences influence life decisions and interactions with others. An exciting novel in its own right with mystery, murder, sex, Native American myth -- all the usual good stuff. but, on the magic side, here is an except of a section written by Etienne (Lawrence O) and used with permission: "Let’s suppose that we tie a long rope with a knot, a regular honest simple tying. We obtain a long loop. Let’s now hand over one side of the loop to a spectator or an audience, the performer taking the other end. In our metaphor we now have three entities: the performer, the spectator and the loop that illustrates the magical theme. Now let’s suppose that the performer starts to let the rope circulate clockwise between his hands and that the spectator, playing the game, goes along. The rope circulates between both of them. This circulation of the rope will represent “real magic” in our metaphor. If the tension on the loop is too loose between the performer and the spectator, it means that the spectator is not “attracted” by what the performer is attempting on his side of the rope. He may play along and allow circulate the rope but interest is low: magic needs a bit of acting showmanship to create a pleasant tension between the spectator and the magician. This is done by using emotional implications. The excitement of the performer creates expectations in the observers fortified by the cycling of the rope. Now let’s suppose that the magician jerks too hard on the pulling side where the audience is supposed to give in. One thing immediately happens, the rope does not circulate freely any more with three possible outcomes: the spectator resists, blocking the “rotation of the rope” (real magic); or the spectator drops his end of the rope (he doesn’t participate emotionally any more); or the knot unties and the rope becomes a line (a demonstration with an end). Some spectators may keep watching the performer turning the rope in his own hand or pointing at the direction it ends in, but he no longer shares an experience of real magic by bringing his own input into the effect." .............. consider this idea against YouTube presentations and "gotcha" approaches.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It sounds like the same idea that Pop explained some time ago; dog and rope play, give and take. Ring any bells?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Cool
Can it be put in non-analogy form, please? |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 7, 2017, tommy wrote: Nope - never read or hear of Pop's description along this line. Etienne wrote this long ago. but, the important factor is the idea involved -- that magic requires a flowing and cooperative participation between the performer and observer. Yes, the performance and entertainment can exist or continue if the "loop is not passed cooperatively," but the "must be magic" quality will vanish.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
"magic requires a flowing and cooperative participation between the performer and observer"
Clear, and makes sense. From my limited experience, I tend to agree. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
As I recall Ken it was Pop that explained the idea of playing with an audience as like playing tug with a dog – one has to let the audience win a little, give it a little rope, to keep it interested in playing along. It is not good to overpower one's audience, by doing tricks like some sort of potato peeler salesmen.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Do you recall what Pop meant by 'win a little?' in that context?
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If you watch Pop performing you will get it. It is a bit a like watching a two-way conversation rather than watching someone lecturing an audience. Pop will explain it in words better I can but he sort of pauses and lets them win a little. If you watch some other magicians they don't give the audience a chance to participate.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Sorry, that doesn't really help. I've watched Pop performing (on video) plenty of times, I don't get it.
Are you saying that 'win a little' is just engaging in conversation and two-way interaction? That doesn't make much sense of the word 'winning', IMHO. Confused??? Why choose the word 'win' if it just means 'speak'? |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Many performers may have used similar analogies. Some Native American myths 6,000 plus years old relate 'magic" to the divine tugging on a rope
and watching for return tugs from humans. (in the book too) What I find unique here is a description of what happens when the performer fails to keep the dynamic going (or never establish it) The loop can lay flat and cease to astonish or mystify, or the knot can come aport and the performance become only a one-way skill demonstration. I am not sure about the 'win' aspect as both lose when the cycling action ceases. Pop's analogy seems to offer a back and forth contest, while Etienne's is a continuous cycling with concern over the amount of slack and maintaining the loop. I do think that sometime san enthusiastic audience can provide the energy on which the performer can build, but the responsibility for creating the loop and keeping it moving is the performer's. The real issue is whether "magic" is part of the entertainment/communication if the loop cycle fails to sustain? For me, most Youtube demonstrations never establish the loop at all -- might be entertaining, but "no magic."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Which I guess brings us to the very tricky definition of 'magic' as it pertains to a performance art.
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Well, some magicians have a fast taking, energetic and busy manner, which can give the audience little time to stop and think. There is no space between the action etcetera for the audience to play with the magician. It is like watching a street vendor demonstrating what some gadget can do. Those magicians can come across as clever, which is not a good thing. That is like giving a dog the rope and dragging it and not very playful. Now if you watch Pops linking rings, for example, it is rather the opposite of that, manner if you will.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
It's the difference between performing AT people, and performing WITH people.
Magic vs. tricks, if you will.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Tommy, are you saying that by 'letting the audience win a little', Pop just meant timing the performance such as to have appropriate pauses or rises and falls? I'd say that that is a taken for granted in the creation of a 'fun' moment with someone, whether in the activity of doing magic tricks or almost anything else . Are you sure Pop wasn't meaning anything else with that choice of wording?
Witchdoc: I don't think trying to differentiate 'magic' (as a performance art, not as in a quasi-religious phenomena) and 'tricks' by the presence of decent social awareness is useful. For example, I do tricks - I don't do shows, I don't charge, I perform socially, and I'd think using the term 'magic' somewhat grandiose for what I do, yet I am fully aware of the need for entertainment, conversation, interaction, theatricality and a host of other obvious things in my doing tricks to create a moment of 'fun' with others. If I say I do 'magic tricks' rather than just 'tricks', how does that actually differ from doing 'magic' in some tangible, non-pretentious way? I don't get the distinction you're trying to make here.??? |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Terrible - why is creating a "moment of 'fun'" and objective?
Also, why would you consider an inexplicable phenomenon to be "quasi-religious?" or as the only alternative view to "performance art?" For example, I feel that all "pretending at magic" has the potential of having an affect on the observer beyond just "entertain me." This is usually not religious or even spiritual. One might even posit that for something to be art in must evoke something more than just a response of "I like" or "beautiful" - whatever, but have an emotional twinge at one's belief structure. Al Schneider quipped, "My job is astonishment. Whether or not the spectator considers it to be magic is up to them." I find in Etienne's writing (much longer that what I posted) that the performer can influence that "consideration" and that is where art comes in. If the immediate response is "rick" or "magic" trick then something is missing.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Why is creating a moment of fun an objective? Do you mean why do I chose a 'moment of fun' as my objective?
Well, that's cutting to the heart of my personal motives in doing magic for people. And I'm not sure I understand my own psychology well enough to give much of an answer . In short, I want (for whatever reason, and it varies daily), to do something that both I and others mutually get a kick out of, a moment of joy, mingled with a touch of amazement, and often humour, that grants momentary respite from the heaviness of the world. I want to feel a zap of happiness mingled with curiosity and intrigue with other humans. I don't know why, nor do I know why I find magic to be a decent vehicle for this. Nor do I claim to have this as my only motive, I daresay I also want to look cool, or kill time, or remove my own boredom, or have people find me interesting, or share a hobby, or play pretend, or a million other less 'noble' motives at the same time But that's basically it. I want to play an instrumental hand in orchestrating a moment of fun, intrigue and interest for myself and others - and I want to do it in a a way that doesn't offend, doesn't cause too much trouble, is within my limited skill and resource range, and is, ultimately, ephemeral - I'm not looking to change beliefs or characters, merely make someone, and myself, smile for a minute. I don't consider what I do art, or spiritual, or anything but what it is - 'magic tricks'. I think that's good enough |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
Quote:
On Jun 8, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote: And after our previous conversations, I'm fairly sure you never will.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
Oh, that seems a somewhat unnecessary slap after a productive and polite discussion so far here
You could at least try, if not for my sake, then for the benefit of any lurkers here reading this thread. Surely your position cannot be that difficult to make clear? I'm only asking you to elucidate, not convince. |
|||||||||
WitchDocChris Inner circle York, PA 2614 Posts |
I spent pages elucidating previously, which was summarily ignored so you could repeatedly call someone fat.
My position has been made clear, you've just ignored what I'm saying. The performance of magic is a relationship between the performer and the audience. If the performer just stands there and does stuff, they are doing magic AT people. There's no chance of engagement from the audience in this scenario. The performer, in that scenario, is creating a wall between themselves and the audience, so that they are two separate entities. To create the space where the audience can engage in the reality the performer is offering, that performer must integrate into the audience, so that they feel it's all one unit. Then they'll be happy to engage in the show and have a good time. It's that back and forth that allows this to happen.
Christopher
Witch Doctor Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4 Boffo eBook: https://tinyurl.com/387sxkcd |
|||||||||
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts |
You have a very different recollection of a previous thread to me. I guess perception is individual . Eitherway, I don't think it excuses your choice to initiate hostilities in this wholly separate thread. But whatever.
I totally agree with your assessment of magic performance as an interaction as outlined above, and I have already said as much previously. What I don't get, though, is why you label this distinction 'magic' v 'tricks'. Could you give your reasoning behind the choice of those terms? To me it just seems that both are performances of magic tricks (thus both are magic and both are doing tricks), but they are done in two differently styles (which subjectively we could also label: done well and done badly), and possibly for two differing objectives. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Magic as Art/Affect (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |