|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
handa Inner circle Pittsburgh, PA 1357 Posts 
|
I think that PP would get a laugh from the audience if he came back in tennis shoes. No rule broken here...PP travels between two worlds all the time. It is only jarring if there is no justification for it. I would agree that there needs to be reason and justification for EVERYTHING that we do as performers, and this would include allowing the audience a glimpse from "the other side."
Asides, onstage narrators, and interactive theatre all come in conflict with the "fourth wall" principle, which is often breached in even the most "conventional" of theatrical venues. Even Shakespeare's characters deliver asides, and of course every audience is called upon to revive Tinkerbell in a way that the actor both acknowledges and involves the audience. So, I'd say that the "frame" or the proscenium arch is an option, a device, a conventioal technique used in one type of presentational theatre. (I've been to as many performances in a 3/4 round or round setting as I have been stage shows.) It is a tool for us to use to our best advantage, not something that we are bound to operate within. Chris |
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Shakspeares characters deliveer asides, do they also deliver ad-lib asides to their asides? Do Shakespeares characters talk about the construction of the sets? It appropriate for an actor in Shakespeare production to take a little time and speak about the actors that have played the role before them? DURING THE PERFORMNCE???
You think it would be cute and funny for an actor to change his costume in the middle of a production. Because the audience would get a laugh out of it. A cheap little laugh would be worth it in your opinion. Well then of course you think giving history lessons during the performance of magic is proper. Just do what I said above. Do a trick then explain it. If you think that's magic, if that what everyone wants to see just do it that way. Keeping a frame between you and the audience is has nothing to do with adressing the audience. It has to do with trying to let people experience magic. Some people will never be able to let their audience experience magic of any sort. It takes away from their cleverness.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
pikacrd Veteran user Florida 387 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-16 08:25, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Deep very Deep. I am not so sure that it applies to all aspects of magic and performance but I can see where you are coming from. Look I agree that when you are on stage that you are creating a fantasy world through your illusions and story but how or should I ask why does sharing story about some of the history of magic hurt the impact of the magic on the audience? For example Copperfield does Grandfathers Legacy and tells the story of how his grandfather taught him at trick yada yada yada. The audience does not know that he is just telling a story for all they know his grandfather was a magician who taught him how to do card magic, and the impact of the trick is still very strong. Other magicians have used photos of themselves learning magic when they were kids to great effect as a part of the story line, the history is true and the impact is still strong. As a close up entertainer I use it in a manner that strengthens the effects that I am showing. Now I am not exposing anything just telling them a story about how I learned a particular effect in context to the trick. Our audiences know that this is a learned art and skill, I think that you can suspend the reality of time and space for moments but in the end I still believe that it is better to present in a manner that does not insult the intelligence of your audience. Trying to convince your audience that you have special powers makes you as an entertainer no better than a physic surgeon who performs BS operations on people who are really sick for money. In complete honesty I would much rather expose the fact that anyone can run down to there local magic shop and buy a book or trick deck of cards to learn magic than to try to convince someone that I have supernatural powers. With all of that said I will re-emphasize the fact that suspending reality is fine as long as you are not crossing that fine line where you actually try to make someone think that the skills you have are real magic.
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
It's not about trying to convince anyone that you have special powers. that's nonsense. But it is about trying to get the focus off yourself and on the magic. It's about doing for your audience and not for yourself. If people would really think about their audience and less about themselves this topic wouldn't even come up in the context of performing. What the hells the difference? Just go forth and educate if that's what you feel goal is.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
The term "try to convince" has some built in problems for me.
First off, to try is also to accept and permit failure. Do, or do not, there is no try. Put more softly, failure is always an option, one would hope it's not your first option. Moving ahead to the term "to convince". Theatrical reality is manifested by social convention and also by fiat of the director. That fiat is respected by most theater goers who accept social convention of the standard 'life as seen in a goldfish bowl' model. Almost ANY reality is workable onstage. Where some folks lose it comes from breaking the rational rules which are offered with the presented theatrical reality. If the characters can fly, fine, then they probably don't use roller skates to travel unless for fun. If all the characters in the stage reality wear yellow capes and red rubber noses, the audience is free to accept this as normal FOR THE WORK PRESENTED. The terms congruence and consistency are key here. If your theatrical reality has magic, fine! Let there be magic! Here is a puzzle for those who "get it". Why are iron and steel feared in the fair lands?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-16 10:00, Vandy Grift wrote: I don't think that anyone of us said that that is what an audience wants to see. I know I didn't. Just because you don't like someone's style, doesn't mean they aren't magical or aren't being true to magic or their audiences. There are different VALID styles of performance, the one you prefer is but ONE of them. |
|||||||||
|
handa Inner circle Pittsburgh, PA 1357 Posts
|
Thanks for the input, Laurie. What you said is far better than I could have phrased it.
Chris |
|||||||||
onezero1 Regular user 178 Posts
|
Well, a hella can of worms, cool.
While I think (after reading all posts VERY carefully) that the subject of my query IS a valid type of presentation, I am don't think I'm going to continue doing it. Not because I have been intimidated or feel any peer pressure here (after all how many of us actually know each other?)but because people whose opinions I respect seem to be saying "kid if you wanna do it, do it, but you better realise you need to be good to pull it off." And well, frankly I'm not THAT good. It was an angle I was unsure about so I asked. Thanks for the answers, adding them to my spectator feedback and baking at a low temperature for several days...result: I spend the entire routine trying to make them forget about the real world and as soon as I succeed, *yank*! back to earth baby, not so much a comedown as a pulldown. The last thing I want to do is coax my audience into never-never land just so I can one-inch punch them back to the land of concrete, bombs and greed. I think I'll let it go...I still think its a shame that the giants whose shoulders we are leaving our mucky boot prints on don't get more true recognition (crediting seems to have become this grim duty...)anyway magician helped. Merci et bon nui.
'though it stands to reason that a samurai should be mindful of the Way...it would seem that we are all negligent.
|
|||||||||
Beth Loyal user Missouri 277 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-17 08:17, onezero1 wrote: Well said one zero..  .It is a shame more people don't know more of our unique history...many of them magicians as well as laypeople. The history of magic is one of the greatest loves I and many magicians have, It's pretty much an obsessions for me lol so I am not down playing the signigance of the Greats in Magic... but I agree with you., I think to put it in a performance is akin to yanking the audience back to earth and away from the illusion we are trying to create. I have to say my biggest problem was telling the name of the effect, because to me that is one step away from finding the method. Great thread though...it made everyone think and stirred a lot of discussion 
Peace Beth
"All creative art is magic, is evocation of the unseen in forms persuasive,enlightening, familar, and surprising."
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Here is one of the story aspects that might trap us:
This illusion was invented by... who did ... with it... and okay, now how did "I" the performer come to this work? Where we have to be careful is our personal connection to the thing. There are several people doing a certain Ramsay coin trick essentially to show off that they can do the thing, and wear it like a badge of honor. Such is sad. To take the next honest step for such a thing and tell people of this would engender pity. You mean you believe that doing this coin trick would make you feel cool or significant? Ouch! On the positive side of this equation, there are items we adopt when we are taught by mentors or inspired by performances we see. That mentoring or inspiration is well worth describing. You've heard about the elves that visited the shoemaker, and the thing that waits under the bed at night. Well I met them. The elves also make nice things in cloth. Here is a bag they made. (egg bag startup). The thing under the bed can be coaxed out if you want. Just change the channels on your TV in an otherwise darkened room, and if you are very quiet it will let you know when it likes what it sees. Then you can start to have a conversation. From my side, it seems pointless to offer the unvarnished truth about tricks and their inventors. Can you imagine someone telling of me and my coins across. There once was a man who wanted to bring a passage in Alice to life, and so taught his coins to become as illusive as the things on the shelves in that shop? Then he taught himself to handle the coins after they became illusive, and one day showed his discovery to Dai Vernon. All true, though hardly a complete history. I suggest a compromise. Tell them what you like about a piece and how it came to you that you should present the piece. Sharing the significance of a thing is probably the communication you seek in this process.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Daniel Faith Inner circle Neenah, Wisconsin 1526 Posts
|
If we are talking children shows here, kids want to have fun and laugh and yell.
They don't want a history lesson.
Daniel Faith
|
|||||||||
|
pikacrd Veteran user Florida 387 Posts
|
Daniel,
Actually no I do not think that we have been talking about children's shows here but since you brought up the question Why not? Or should I say how can you be so sure, have you ever tried to present the history of magic in an entertaining way that might capture the attention and imagination of the children that you are trying to entertain, or are you projecting your feelings about the subject on to the children? Just a thought.
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Actually magicalaurie stated that se does perform for children primarily. Pik, it's intresting that you should use the word projecting. Because I believe that is what is going on during these history lessons. The performer is projecting something that intrests them onto an audience that is looking to be entertained by magic. It's like I said above, I don't believe that if you sat down and tried to work something out that will mystify and entertain and audience. The ultimate magical experience if you will. History and the like would never enter into the equation.
Agree or disagree?
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
pikacrd Veteran user Florida 387 Posts
|
Agree or disagree?
Both I agree and disagree with different parts of your post. For example I agree that in some ways we all project what we want our audience to see and hear on them. Regardless of if it is a history lesson or a great magic effect. The fact is unless you have a fill in the blank card that asks the audience for there input regarding what effects that you are going to perform prior to your performance you are projecting what you think they will want to see, and of course the latter is kind of silly. I disagree that if you sat down and tried to work something out that will mystify and entertain the audience, that the ultimate magical experience if you will, that history and the like would never enter into the equation. As a matter of fact I will strongly disagree with this comment to the point of stating that if entertaining is the ultimate goal while performing magic, than the magic is second to the entertainment and the entertainment should be what is focused on. Here is a real world example of what I am talking about, take Paul Gertner’s Silver and steel cups and balls routine and subtract out all of the patter what do you have a good technical piece of magic but not all that exciting to watch for the lay crowd. It is his patter and personality that make the effect fun to watch. I can give hundreds of examples of where the magic is quite boring to watch but only with carefully timed patter and charisma is the effect exciting. If you are equating magic to entertainment than why are there not more magic shows on TV? Because magic without a good entertainer behind it is boring for non magicians and to be truthfully honest what most people are paying to see when they hire a magician or go to see a magic show is the entertainer. Take Lance for example his show without him not very exciting proposition but put Lance in any environment without his magic and he is still an entertaining guy who people would find engaging and interesting. The same is true with just about any of the top magicians going, they have to be interesting and entertaining people first. It is true that there have been some great silent acts in magic history but still it is the entertainer behind the magic that is building the excitement in what they do by there gestures and body language. So again I will ask why is it that a magic show or close up routine that contained some history in it can not be entertaining for a lay crowd? I personally think that if done correctly that you can capture the imaginations of your audience and expose them to something that can be very entertaining to them as much as yourself. It just takes the correct presentation.
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-19 14:20, pikacrd wrote:...you can capture the imaginations of your audience ...It just takes the correct presentation. That sounds good in general. I don't see any particular attachment to the notion of history there, nor any reason why our history would be of particular interest in a way that a completely fabricated story would not. IE why tell any of the truth> This especially in a craft whose function and methodology require audiences to be aware of almost everything BUT the pertinent truths.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
pikacrd Veteran user Florida 387 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-19 14:26, Jonathan Townsend wrote: In taking that section out of context I would tend to agree with you but if you read the last paragraph it states in whole: So again I will ask why is it that a magic show or close up routine that contained some history in it can not be entertaining for a lay crowd? I personally think that if done correctly that you can capture the imaginations of your audience and expose them to something that can be very entertaining to them as much as yourself. It just takes the correct presentation. And this does reference that I think that a routine containing some magic history is not a bad thing. With that said I will agree with you that you could make up any story, but sometimes truth is stranger and can be more entertaining and fascinating than fiction. Look I am not saying that you should do a magic show as a history lesson as Mr. Vandy keeps implying that I am; what I am saying is that if done correctly it can be entertaining and topical to a given effect. I again am not saying that anyone should include it in there act, I am simply stating that I do not think that it is all bad again when done correctly. So if you perfer to make up a story than by all means make one up, but if you feel that you can present magic history in an interesting and entertaining way go for it, you may be suprised by the reaction that you get. You may also spawn a new interest in someone and what is the harm in that?
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
I'm not saying that it can't be entertaining. Lots of things can be out of place but still be made to be entertaining. We will obviously never agree on this topic. I just don't see where it fits in...and why. I guess I would just draw a distinction between talking/teaching/lecturing/referencing what ever you want to call it, and performing. I don't see why the twain should meet in the performance of magic.
It just seems incongruous to me. Now you don't have to call me Mr. Vandy unless you are condescending to me. If you are, Mr. Grift would be more proper. My friends call me Vandy and you are welcome to do so as well. I am not trying to imply that you are saying magic should be presented as a "history lesson" that's why until the more recent posts I used quotation marks around that statement. But if you insist that the HISTORY of magic and magicians and God knows what all has its place in presentation, I guess I will use that phrase from now on. Because that's what it could be reduced to if the utmost care were not taken. This is not the most important issue in magic and perhaps I should just let it go. Earlier this week I had a very large post ready to go when Jonathan made a very nice post that I thought was going to bring this thread to a close. I think we just have very different thoughts about what magic is all about. What it means to the performer and what it means to the spectator. (which I believe are two very different things). It goes back to the notion of allowing a spectator to experience the magic that you know dosen't exist. I won't use that "agree to disagree" thing, because I hate that saying. But I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Don't agree with them, but appreciate them just the same. Vandy
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
ChristianR Veteran user 356 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-08 09:13, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Magic history, BORING??? If its anything its definatly NOT that! If you look at magic history and start to read about it its amazing! I used to be like you and dislike history but after reading Hiding the Elephant and starting The Illustrated History of Magic I have been amazed. You learn orgins of effects and you can create very interesting conversations, I don't know how but while studying magic I have been becoming a better magician by reading the falls and rise(s?) of famous magicians. You might just find a few amazing secrets to when you study  Enough of this useless jabber.
Tarbell!
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
First it's great that you're reading the books. What useless jabber? The older books are troves of goodies.
Lets not presume upon what others here have read and what they know. Much easier to ask if others have read those books. As to whether or not it makes sense to point out and discuss our goodies with lay audiences is our topic of discussion. My feeling remains that the slow and emotionally tumultuous evolution of much of our magic is an awkward subject. For example, to introduce Ramsay's coin work one would need to explain and demonstrate some of Downs's work which is what Ramsay's audiences of magicians would have known about and been looking for. This in turn requires some mention of L'homme Masque and his coin production routines which Downs refined and extended to permit manipulations with MANY coins. Do we mention the books? How do we discuss our books and their contents? Do we discuss who wrote the books? Do we discuss how we feel about the books? Could we discuss this in language which is both accurate yet avoid any direct mention of methods? Can we discuss our studies and findings in colorful as opposed to engineering terms without coming across as ancient wizards and alchemists whose books are full of strange words and pictures? It seems to me that when we do justice to our history, we probably also need to display things which the lay audience does not notice in performance and in so doing taint their perspective. Instead I suggest we offer them mention of our sincere emotional connection to the material we do and perhaps something about how we came to it. The idea being that we share OUR connection to the material. History -> his story (or hers) -> our stories
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts
|
I appreciate your sentiment, Mad Duck.
Please don't doubt that Mr. Townsend has done much reading.
Jon, I agree with you on presenting our CONNECTION. I don't think anyone has suggested giving an indepth history lesson- only to touch on points we feel are relevant to our connection and our audience. I don't believe we need to give a complete history lesson in order to "do justice" to the history of magic. We can use a tip of the hat, as someone else has mentioned. Or, as I mentioned, an introduction. I do believe it can be done in an entertaining way. I believe I do it in an entertaining way, if I do say so myself . My audiences' reactions are consistent with my belief. As I said earlier, there are different VALID styles of presentation. I certainly agree yours is one of them. AND mine is another. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » We double dare you! » » Is this a presentation taboo? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 16, 2005 01:42 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < 
|