|
|
Alex Capra New user Frankfurt, Germany 28 Posts |
*I am sorry if I have chosen the wrong forum to post in, in this case I would be grateful if the respected administrators would tell me where it would be more appropriate:)*
Hello everybody, I would like to share with you some information about the history project I am working on and to ask for some advice. I do not write a lot at the Magic Café, so I will shortly introduce myself. I am a magician currently working in Moscow, Russia. Besides this, I am a graduate of the Moscow State University (the oldest and, I believe, the best one in Russia), where I studied languages and history. I and my wife are now planning to move to Germany to become PhD students at the Frankfurt Goethe University. I was accepted to the department of the history of arts. It wasn’t easy because my topic is about magic (so here you finally understand why I am actually posting all this here: ). To be more precise my topic is “Art of magic in Great Britain between 1860’s and 1910’s. Artistic expression of impossible”. My aim is to study life and work of David Devant and John Nevil Maskelyne. Well, this topic has been studied already but there are some specific points about my project that are important. As you can see, I am not intending to write a book on magic history strictly for magicians or for the general public. I am writing a PhD that will be presented to the scientific community: art historians, specialists in cultural studies etc. That is why I believe I am setting an important goal: to introduce the scientific community to magic and to make one step further in making it a part of the established history of arts. I know that there were PhDs dedicated to magic, but as far as I know they mostly deal with the psychology. My aim is to try to prove that magic can (and should be) considered as an art form along with theatre, music etc. It is a common topic for discussion among magicians, but I believe that these discussions never really get outside of the magic community. Of course we all try to demonstrate the fact of magic being an art through our performances, but I believe that it is also important to be able to theoretically prove it. When I was sending my research proposal to different professors, before I got a positive answer I got dozens of emails with the same question: “So you are going to write about magic tricks? Why do you call it “art”? Have you studied the history of arts?”. In fact I did. And yes – I have never seen the word “magic” there except for some chapters dedicated to the ancient magic rituals. That is why I believe this kind of work is of great importance. The main objective of my research is to analyze the art of magic in the context of culture and art of the chosen period and find out how an artistic shape was created for this kind of art, i.e. which dramatic, psychological and presentational techniques were used. For all of you who are interested in reading a short abstract of my future, I shared it through Google Docs, please follow the link to see the PDF https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B98L4CRB......V1U/edit So why am I writing all this? Well, first of all I am really interested in your opinion. May be some of you may give some advice on the best way to approach the topic or provide some information about previous research of this kind. And the second question is about a very simple matter: money) May be some of you know of some magical (or probably non magical) organizations that could provide funding for such kind of a research? I am planning to continue my performance career in Germany, but it obviously will take time to learn the market and, most importantly, learn the language (I am going to write my thesis in English and by know I only have some very basic knowledge of German). So before I am able to perform for some big German corporations (or, most probably, for some nice German guys enjoying their beer at the local pub) I will be nothing but a PhD student: ) That is why I am now looking for some sort of grant and seeking for advice among fellow magicians: ) I would be happy to answer any questions and just to chat about history and theory of magic. Best regards, Alex. |
Dallas Robbins Regular user 105 Posts |
I wish you luck in your endeavor. Sounds like an exciting research project.
I think that by establishing magic as an art, from an academic perspective, I think it would be worth exploring some comparison study. How does magic compare to other arts from the same time period? Are they affected by the same cultural, aesthetic, or political influences? Does magic have any explicit relation to Romanticism in music, Impressionism in painting, or early Modernism in literature? It's something that might provide some insight in establishing your thesis. Since I'm fairly ignorant of magic history, I really wouldn't even know where to start, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind after reading your post. Good luck with your work, and I hope you'll be able to find some research grants to help out. |
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
One aspect of the magic/art relationship that you can point out is that painting, dance, and music all may have started out as expressions of magic. This National Geographic site, for instance
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/da......1.6.html notes (in regard to the cave paintings at Lascaux) that: -----quote----- Some scholars insist that the decorations of the caves stem purely from artistic desires—they should be seen as art for art’s sake. But other scholars, in light of the choice of subjects, see the representations as evidence of magical rites intended to ensure success in hunting or fertility. -----end quote----- I would guess that if you go to a good art library at a university you could find some primary sources that discuss the magic/art connection. And then there's the quote from Shakespeare in _The Winter's Tale_: "If this be magic, let it be an art." You might also explore the point Maskelyne was trying to make when he spoke of "the art _in_ magic" rather than "the art _of_ magic." And then there's the question about whether magic is "high art," which was a somewhat heated discussion here on the Magic Café: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=134 ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
Alex Capra New user Frankfurt, Germany 28 Posts |
Dallas, thanks for your reply! It is really a great point to think in this direction. I think that in the books on magic history magic is not really put in the context of its time (or, at least, this is not the way in which the chronology of magic is understood). I have never really seen (correct me if I am wrong) something like "romanticism of magic". But, as far as magic is a part of the culture (like every other art), there obviously should be elements that show us that some particular act has features that identify it as a part of the romantic movement. And here we come to the most difficult point. It is not really that easy to identify these kind of influences when we talk about magic. The final product of magic is a magic act and, unfortunatelly, as opposed to the music of painting, we are not able to see the exact act shown by Maskelyne or any other performer of the 19th century since none of them was filmed. So one of the primary tasks I should set (at least I believe so) is to try to recreate (at least in written form) in every detail their act and try to cover all the aspects (stage setting, script, music, costumes etc).
So, thanks again - very thoughts provoking) Anatole, thank you, this is also another good point. And it is a good way to start with the concept of magic itself. For some reason it seems that the magic (as a part of a ritual or a belief) should be separated from the "magic" (conjuring). And your post actually makes me think that it really important to prove the opposite and to show these connections. And the Shakespeare's quote is just perfect for the epigraph!:) ps thanks for the link to the thread |
Jacques Loyal user North 206 Posts |
The question asked by professors about magic as art is a standard question anyone gets when their subject seems outside the usual art field. They simply want you to justify your subject.
You may want to look for links between illusionism and art. For example, Georges Méliès and cinéma. Robertson's fantasmagoria and light installations, Pepper's ghosts in theater... I guess you already made a bibliography (I hope), so you may already know these books: "Performing Dark Arts - A Cultural History of Conjuring", Michael Mangan, 2007. "Performing Magic on the Western Stage - From the Eighteenth Century to the Present", ed. Francesca Coppa, Lawrence Hass, and James Peck, 2008. |
AGMagic Special user Cailf. 775 Posts |
Since your topic is "Art of magic in Great Britain between 1860’s and 1910’s. Artistic expression of impossible” I would contact the Magic Circle for assistance in research.
Tim Silver - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Magic-Woodshop/122578214436546
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. Visualize Whirled Peas! |
Andrew Immerman Regular user California 108 Posts |
I've heard art defined as a means to elicit emotional connection. According to an etymological dictionary, art is old French for "a skill or ability acquired as the result of learning and practice." Leonardo da Vinci defined, "Art is the Queen of all sciences communicating knowledge to all the generations of the world," while Pablo Picasso defined, "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand." It should be clear that magic meets all these criteria, both figuritively and literally.
It's my opinion that the performance of magic, when done to evoke emotion, emotional connection, or thought, is certainly art. Quoting one of my many favorite magicians, "Magic can change the way we think about our lives," (Kim Silverman). When you have a chance, if you haven't already, check out Kim Silverman's TEDx talks, particularly Making Magic Meaningful. Another great example that immediately comes to mind is Tina Lenert's Maid in Heaven (Mr. Mopman). Maskelyne and Devant, who, in describing the "High Art in Magic," wrote, "[High Art] exists only in its power to create, but its creations are, humanly speaking, imperishable." And to those who dismiss the artfulness of magic as nothing more than a clever assembly of sleights, "As grammar is to literature, or versification to poetry, so are sleights and fakes to magic. Such things are the means, not the end of art." Both quotes are from Our Magic. For me, great magic evokes emotion, cultures connection, provokes thought, and is timeless. Great magic lacks nothing for me to call it art! Just some thoughts, Andrew |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magicians of old » » PhD research in magic: seeking advice! (0 Likes) |
[ 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 < |