|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Thankyou Kregg.
As for the rest of you, please read the whole thread, this arguement is coming full circle. You are making arguements that have already been made and rebuted. Rather than me restate the arguement over and over ad infinitum, go back and read the whole thread. Eg. chrisrkline - your arguement has been made and rebuted several times in several threads, including this one. It is, in fact where the debate portion of this thread begins. The short answer lay in the defenition of a lie, in that to be a lie, the intent to decieve must exist. Our intent is not to decieve, it is to entertain. Were it to decieve, we would then not bill ourselves as magicians, as the audience is familiar with a general enterpitation of what it is we do, and is therefore no more compelled to believe anything we do is straightforward thatn an audience at Hamlet is compelled to believe that the actor is actualy the Prince of Denmark. As recently stated, the actor actualy tries harder to fool the audience than we do, we simply have better tools. |
|||||||||
Bilwonder Veteran user Oroville CA 327 Posts |
I was influence by the writings of Sam Sharpe many years ago. I ws also amazed at how he articulates topics that seem to jump into current discussions. Sam deals with the subject of lies in his chapter on "Great Magic" in Neo Magic. I don't always understand or agree with him, but I am often surprised to find what I thought were my own thoughts printed in his pages.
"Lies are a form of deceit because they are contrary to the truth, but the artist simply puts his imagination into concrete form...he belongs in the same class as the philosopher in that he deals in something between demonstrable fact and deliberate falsehood: he DISREGARDS the truth by stepping into the land of fantasy... "The more convincing the poet can tell his untruths, the better his art...The artist does not pretend to convey facts, but fancies. When a conjurer says, "I will place this ball into my hand," he is not telling a lie, because what he says is true WITHIN THE SPHERE OF HIS IMAGINATION,' which he is 'acting out.'... "Actions should be judged by motives. Now the Motive of Magic is to EVOKE WONDER, and tricks (or if you prefer, deceptions) are Accessories to the Act. If Result falls short of producing complete wonder, the conjurer may be justly criticised...." "The essence of acting and poetry, as well as conjuring, is this DISREGARD for the truth. If the writer of novels only made accurate statements, he would not be a novelist but an historian. And as a conjurer's job is to make people wonder wether they are awake or dreaming, he resorts to poetic licence in the pursuit of that justifieable end. "...Yet is not all conjuring, in a way, philosophical, through being the one art based on evoking wonder...the fount from which all philosphy springs? The one art which prompts people to distrust their misleading sense-perception? Is not all conjuring poetic as a result of its mystical, imaginative basis? And the more so in proportion as it causes enchantment rather than mere curiousity and sensation?" "Just as the greatest concious power of man is his power of reason, so the greatest art is that which acts as a vehicle to questions of How and Why: Love and Hate:..." Though Conjuring per se may not be philosophical, niether is Literature, Painting, or Music. Art is art, and philosophy is philosophy, but the twain can meet to both's advantage."
billswondershow.com
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Does that mean you agree with me Bill? Thankyou for posting that, I'm not nearly as good at wordcrafting as the aforementioned author, but those words very much mirror my own thoughts.
|
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Jackscratch, my arguments have not been rebutted. My argument is that we lie. tell me where that was rebutted.
As far as acting, there is a difference between acting in a believable way, and expecting the audience to believe you are Hamlet. If that is your goal, then you are doomed to failure. The actor who plays Peter Pan wants you to believe many things, most of which are true and through which most come from good acting. He or she does not want you to believe he or she is really flying on the stage. Copperfield does.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-24 13:21, JackScratch wrote:... How are we going to use words to make magic when we are tripping over the basics of common language? Yes, not an uncommon problem.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-24 15:14, chrisrkline wrote:...The actor who plays Peter Pan wants you to believe many things, most of which are true and through which most come from good acting. He or she does not want you to believe he or she is really flying on the stage... All of those people in the production want you to be able to and willing to believe peter pan is flying in the story you are watching unfold in the theater.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Chrisrkline - You have a lot to learn about acting, actors, and performance on general.
Posted: May 23, 2006 11:38am(I believe the 18th post on page 2 of this thread.)Is the rebutal of your "each effect is a lie" arguement. |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
Why are so many folks upset at the use of the word 'lie' with respect to the performance of magic? With respect to creating a method for doing magic tricks, Michael Weber once told me, "The shortest distance between two points is a LIE!"
When I perform, I make no secret of the fact that I'm a liar. In fact, in the introduction to one of my effects I say the following: "I'm about to tell you the secret of every magic trick ever created, so listen carefully. (dramatic pause) I'm a bald-faced liar, and if you believe the lies that I tell, you'll see things happen that didn't happen!" Once you call yourself a magician, most of the people in the audience know that you're in the deception business. I strive to tell my lies so artfully well that the audience is left in the twilight zone. They've observed something that is both impossible and convincingly real. They know that they've been deceived (they knew this before the magician started), but everything was so seemingly fair that they have no idea how they were deceived. Whit Haydn describes this state of mind like this (paraphrasing): There is no such thing as magic. AND What I just witnessed is not possible except by magic. The magic lies in creating for the audience a temporary state of uncertainty about the fundamental nature of reality. Most folks can't carry this uncomfortable contradiction in their heads for a long time. In the end, most audience members will reach the reasonable (and correct) conclusion that they've been deceived somehow. For some, the peculiar state of uncertainty that they felt may linger in their subconscious mind for quite some time after the performance has ended. "El arte es una mentira que nos acerca a la verdad." -Pablo Picasso (Translation: "The art is a lie that leads us to the truth.")
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-23 11:38, JackScratch wrote: This is not a rebuttle that we do not lie. "Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." is what we do every time we perform. Your belief that there is some required "moral" intention to make it a lie is not in the definition. There is an intention to tell the lie, but morals are not implied. A lie can be good or bad. As far as acting. Give me one reference to support your contention that good acting requires we believe that the person on the stage is Peter Pan or Hamlet. I am not arguing that the acting not be believable, or that we should not vicerally feel Hamlet's distress, but I never believe it is Hamlet. I do not believe I am in Denmark. I do not believe people are killed. I do not expect Peter Pan to fly through hoops to convince me is really flying. I am suspending disbelief. I do not believe that Copperfield is flying either, but boy he is sure convincing. I thought it might be wires, but How did he make it through the hoop. Is it magic, or is it not, that is the question.
Chris
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
There are techniques and strategies for lying to people. Those of us who admit that we want to lie and deceive can take advantage of these.
I am always interested in those who proclaim "Magicians aren't actors!" and "Magicians aren't liars!" I don't know what they get out of taking this position. They cut themselves off from the literature, skills, insights and techniques that have been created to make lying and acting more effective and simpler, and for what? So they can sleep at night because they didn't "tell a lie?" If you want people to accept that you are a "real" magician with "real" magic powers, and to be convinced of that even after the show, then you are doing something different from the art form that I practice, my mentors practiced, and every famous magician I can think of practiced. You are claiming to be a "real" magician and trying to prove it--in earnest. The artists who call themselves magicians try to prove they are real with tongue in cheek, as part of a game. They work earnestly, but not "in earnest." Their goal is to create the dilemma, not certainty. What you seem to be recommending is the type of act that Cagliostro practiced, and it isn't theater. It is charlatanry. No one goes to Hamlet and comes away talking about how Hamlet looked different than he did the last time he saw him in a play. No one in the audience ever thinks that the actor is really Hamlet the Prince of Denmark. It would be insulting and stupid for an actor to attempt to fool the audience in that way. The audience goes away thinking "That is the BEST Hamlet I ever saw," not, "That one I think was the real Prince of Denmark." Drew, you have never re-butted anything on this thread. You just keep making the same silly statements over and over again. I don't think you have convinced a single person of your point of view, and in fact, after reading all your posts for lots and lots of pages, I have yet to even understand your position. Do you want to present yourself as being a "real" magician, perhaps even the devil himself, who does "real" magic using powers that are unknown and unavailable to the average mortal? Do you want to walk away leaving people convinced that that is true? If you do, then I think you are not an entertainer and don't belong in this crowd of people. If that is your position, then you are a charlatan and a rogue, not a performer like the rest of us here. Even worse, you might actually think you are a "real" magician with "real" magic powers, and what you do in demonstrating these powers is all real, and not deception. In that case you are self-deceived, and probably a bit unhinged. To tell you the truth, the position you want to stake out for yourself is not going to be shared by anyone on this board who thinks of his work as art and entertainment. What you want to do is to promote a cause--"Magic is real. I am its Prophet." If the goal of your art is not to create the dilemma, "There is no such thing as magic/There is no other explanation," then tell us what it is you want to accomplish with your art. Do you want to let the spectators walk off convinced that what they saw was really magic? If not that, what? |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Drew:
What is the goal of your magic? If not to create the dilemma, then what do you want to create? Conviction? If people walk away from your show believing that you are "special" because you have some great powers that the average person doesn't have--if you want the ladies to think that you might have secret knowledge and secret powers that might be of use to them if they had them (something that may be a useful sort of leverage for you if you want to have such an advantage)--then you are not doing magic the way that the practitioners of the Theater of the Dilemma do it. We want the audience to be left in wonder and reverie. You want to enlist them as followers of your cult of belief. You want to leave them in error and in a lie. That is not friendly, nor ethical in my view. It is much, much worse than a harmless lie told in a joke or a story--that is, it is something meant to actually change someone's view of reality. That is a much different thing than causing people to examine and question their view of reality. Your goal is hostile and aggressive. You are really trying to screw with the spectator's mind in a way that he didn't bargain for--you want to convince him of something that (perhaps) you believe is true but that you need to fake the evidence in order to convince him. This is wrong to do, in my opinion. You better know what you are doing, or you will end up like the magician in Thomas Mann's story "Mario and the Magician." In that story the magician oversteps his boundaries, and does things to the spectator's mind that are unacceptable. The result if rebellion and murder. You might get some benefits from this type of performance, but they are stolen ones. You become like one of those pathetic types who wears military medals he is not entitled to wear--hoping to impress the gullible for the sake of some advantage. That isn't art. It is a low-level form of con game. So if I am still not understanding you, please put it in simple terms. What do you want the audience to think about what they have seen? What is the goal that you are trying to accomplish with your approach to the art? Do you want the people to walk away believing what they have seen, or not? |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Whit - I have explained my motives in this forum repeatedly. My goal is to expand the horizons of my audience. I want them to believe that the world doesn't have bounds. I'm so glad you showed up in this thread, I was just thinking "what I realy need is amateur psychoanalysis."
Chris - You want just one referense? How bout Kregg's last post? You realy don't get it, do you? As for intent, it is inherent in the defenition of a lie, as described in the same post that I posted the defenition in. Where I commented on the fact that anyone whose intent it was to decieve, wouldn't announce it, the way we do. I can see where read parts of posts would give you the perspective you are taking. Try reading the whole things. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-24 21:04, JackScratch wrote: Those who wish their boundaries expanded seek professional help. Ordinarily we relegate the SOCIAL housekeeping of the inner world to others outside this craft. It is simply NOT ecological to affect the world view of others. Those who wish to seek psychoanalytic help are well advised to find their help both in private and from competent professionals. Unless someone has accepted magic as part of their life ( and by that I mean something closer to Crowley's magicK ) it is simply inappropriate to treat ones audience as a novitiate or seeker of methods to use will to affect the world.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Very well put, Jon.
Drew: The artist who oversteps his bounds, uses his craft to convert rather than to challenge. It is always healthy to have our understanding of the boundaries questioned and tested. It is another thing entirely to have the boundary markers moved surreptiously during the night. "That the world does not have bounds" is a statement of your world view. I do not agree with it at all. I think it is an untrue and dangerous position to adopt. But you have a right to your opinion, and I will not demand that you change it. Nor would I dream of coming up with fake evidence that might shake your beliefs. That would be arrogant, treacherous and unfriendly in the extreme--to say the least. On the other hand, you are seeking to use fake evidence to convert people to a world view of your own making. That is not art. It is propaganda--Charlatanry. |
|||||||||
chrisrkline Special user Little Rock 965 Posts |
Jack, with all due respect to Kregg, I would like a reference to professional actors or professional acting teachers, that I could access on the web or some other method who make the claim that actors should convince the audience that they are really Hamlet.
If this is a common conception among actors, then they are a sorry lot, because they have been abject failures since time began, since no spectator has ever believed that the man on the stage is really Hamlet. Now, no fair changing the argument here and claim that you only meant that actors should try to achieve some realism and truth in their performance. With that I agree. But when LobowolfXXX said, “[y]our dogged adherence [sic] to the Hamlet analogy demonstrates that that's not at all what you want. The actor doesn't expect, or want, you to REALLY think he's the Prince of Denmark. That's suspension of disbelief,” you said, in response that “If I may correct your statement, ‘The poorly trained actor doesn't expect, or want, you to REALLY think he's the Prince of Denmark.’ Every acting instruction I have ever heard would state otherwise.” Otherwise? Otherwise to LobowolfXXX’s statement that actors don’t expect people to believe that he is Hamlet? You think otherwise? That actors should make us believe that they are Hamlet? Again name one actor, acting instruction school, or acting manual that argues that actors should work to getting the audience to really believe the character on stage is really Hamlet. I suppose if it is just Kregg that you have heard from, look then to the next request. Even better name one spectator who really believes, at any time during a play, that the person on the stage is Hamlet. Not in the abstract. Name a real spectator. The spectator never believes for one moment that what they see on stage is real. That does not preclude them feeling what the actor wants them to feel, and by using their imagination, make believe that they are experiencing what they see simulated on the stage. Because at no time are they expected to believe a falsehood (wait a minute Martha! This isn't Denmark, it is Little Rock! They lied to me!) there is no lie. But when I do a card trick, they are to really believe that the card under their foot changed from a ten to a four. They can, and should repeat over and over, “There is no magic, but gosh darn it was a ten—I know it—but it changed to a four.” I lied.
Chris
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Well, I'll actually modify my statement, to make an obvious point more clearly, though I'm sure Jack will still dispute it. Regardless of what a trained actor WANTS, the highly trained, outstanding, top-of-the-line actor doesn't not actually BELIEVE that the audience thinks he's the king of Denmark. Not even during the performance, and CERTAINLY not after the performance, so I'll restrict my point to "after the performance." Lawrence Olivier did not walk around thinking that Danish people were going to think he was royalty. Or, better still, be surprised that he's still alive at the curtain call, after being stabbed.
IN CONTRAST, magicians DO want AND EXPECT that EVEN AFTER the performance, the audience will believe that at point X in the ambitious card routine, the card DID, in fact, go into the midde of the deck. They want the audience to believe, and expect the audience to believe, that they saw 4 solid steel rings. Yes, they know that the big picture is deception for entertainment, but they FULLY EXPECT, and NEED, the audience to accept certain things as fact during the performance. There is NO acting analog. You can enjoy Olivier's Hamlet without thinking that he's Danish royalty, or that he's dead at the end of the performance.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
To put it another way, at intermission of a play, if your friend says to you, "Hey! That's not really the Prince of Denmark! That's Lawrence Olivier. He's an actor," your reaction will probably be something like, "No...kidding, Sherlock!" The performance will lose nothing.
On the other hand, if you stop an ambitious card routine and your friend says, "Your card really never was on top. He did what they call a 'double lift' and showed you the SECOND card from the top. Then he put the top card into the middle, tapped the deck, and OF COURSE your card was still there on top," the routine loses EVERYTHING. Even though the audience knows that you will be deceptive, they don't know when, where, or how, and that ignorance is critical. If the audience doesn't buy the lie (that it's YOUR card going into the middle of the deck), then the routine is pointless. If the audience BELIEVES (not "feels" or "experiences the emotional reality") that Hamlet is an actor, it doesn't hurt anything. I've never been surprised that any Hamlet (and I've seen some great ones) was still alive at the end of the show to take his bows. No adult has. You don't need to believe the untruth for acting to work, and you're not seriously expected to; that's why it's not a lie.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
In other forms of the Theater, the audience is asked to "pretend" that magic is real.
Magicians don't need their audiences to pretend. They will show them magic, and prove that it is magic. The audience still knows at some level that the magic isn't "real," but the conviction that it is real is very strong, even without their suspension of disbelief. This experience is very different from the theatrical depiction of magic. |
|||||||||
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts |
Were it not, then "magic" would be called "acting". That is not to say that they do not have remarkable similarities. That's the problem I keep having with you guys. It's all or nothing. Magic either is acting, or they have nothing in common. It astounds me that you can speak of "knowing magic isn't real on some level", but argue that people do not believe the the actor is the Prince of Denmark. You argue in oposition to yourselves.
I hardly intend to "convert" anyone, but I love no form of debate tactic more than modifying the words of others to absurd extremes, so please, all of you, carry on. Keep up the good work. The audience either believes everything you do, or nothing. Or maybe it's somewhere inbetween. Something we could call suspension of disbelief. A state where they know the "truth", that word you guys keep mis-using, yet chose to ignore it. Of course if they know the truth, and know it because we told them, then we have hardly lied, now have we? They know you put the card in the center of the deck, they know because they saw it. They also know you did not put the card in the center of the deck. They know because they know who and what you are. They know this because you told them. I don't like the association of words like "lie", "deciet", and "deception" with our art for two very important reasons. One, because we already have a negative imagage in the public to deal with, and it's idiotic to make it worse because we think it sounds clever to say we lie. And two, because it is inacurate. It does not represent what we do in any meaningful way. You can reply to this or not, I'm done. I don't even have to read the replies because you are going to drag the same tired tripe out over and over, ad nausium. |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Ad nauseum
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Magic Lies. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |