Just like the subject says, what do you think makes magic an artform?

The artform comes from the performance aspect of magic. Everytime you see a magician perform, it is a different show than the last. I mean, you can see the linking rings performed 100 times, but each magician will have a different presentation for us.

Each magician is an artist in how he or she brings magic to an audience. I mean, there are categories of artists (like watercolor, scultputre, pottery, etc.), and there are categories of magicians (stage, close-up, coin, etc). Inside each of those categories is a sub-subcategory. Everyone is unique, and just like art, nobody will see a work of art (ie magic performance) in the exact same way another person will.

The magician. If some one pulls out a rope with a ring tied on it and says " can you get the ring off " and then shows how they can do this after you fail, this person has done a stunt, a trick, a bar bet. Now this same person takes the same rope and ring, sets it up with a bit of patter and takes you along on an experience leading to when they take the ring off. This is magic.
Now when it becomes an art is just how well this is done and by who. When my little girl does a painting I think it is art. Someone who does not know her will just think it's a mess.

Just my thought on this subject.

One definition of an artist is that of a person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill.

An artform is an activity or artistic work that can be regarded as a medium of artistic expression.

Given that, there is no doubt, in my mind, that the skills and creativity in some magicians make them artists. It is they that create magic, in their hands as an artform.

I, on the other hand, tend to make magic more primitive than you can possibly imagine! LOL

Nocashvalue23 writes: "Each magician is an artist in how he or she brings magic to an audience."

That's very true.

What makes magic an art form is that the presentation of it involves part of the performer.

And an involvement on the part of the audience, too.

(But, just because each magician is an artist, doesn't mean that he or she is a GOOD one!)

Actually in the strictest sense of the word, Magic is NOT inheritently an art it is by definition a craft.

That is, a set of skills executed in a specific manner requiring manual dexterity or skillful artistry. Crafts often used loose associations or guilds, very similar to the magicians clubs and organizations, in which the initiates could learn from those more skilled in the craft.

I suppose a good case could be made for it being art since the lines between the two have become blurred over the ages.

I believe the performance of magic can be elevated to the position of art by the manner of one's performance. In the performers attention to detail and the emotional effect it produces in others.

Just my thoughts.

Frankft writes: "Magic is NOT inheritently an art it is by definition a craft.
"That is, a set of skills executed in a specific manner requiring manual dexterity or skillful artistry."

If that was all magic was, then it would be just basic juggling!

The art comes in what one DOES with that set of skills, not in perfecting the skills themselves.

[quote]On 2003-05-21 00:06, Frankft wrote:
Actually in the strictest sense of the word, Magic is NOT inheritently an art it is by definition a craft.

By definition magic is truly an art. Webster's unabridged dictionary defines art as skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience......Sounds like a description of magic if I've ever heard one.
Michaels

The discussion above points out the importance of defining your terms. It does apppear that the word art means differnet things to different people. I would put forth based upon the definition from Websters that the creation of an effect/Illusion constitutes art as well.

Couldn't agree more! Webster has more definitions for the word art than I have toes.

Magic..... is magic when is perform by an Artist.

Mago Mai

Magic is an artform when it breaks down all walls between people from different countries, different races, etc. It can be understood by almost everyone, and also enjoyed just the same. Sometimes, not a word needs to be spoken to get an effect across, that's what makes magic such a wonderful art. It is not the skill or the effect that the magician is trying to bring across to the audience, but rather the experience of something totally unique, totally impossible, that will remain etched in one's mind for the rest of one's life. Everyone hopes to leave a lasting impact on some other living being, and it is through the art of magic that we can bring the audience to another level, a place where the only boundaries are restricted by their very own imagination.

If you do something (no matter what it is) and it has your full heart and devotion, then it is an art. However, the definition of art is a touchy subject. Art is in the eye of the creator.

I think magic is an art form because it is so thought provoking. If you see an illusion like sawing a women in half the brain automatically thinks how is that possible, it goes against anything I have ever seen before. You cannot watch a trick like this and say oh yeah he just sawed right through her no big deal, you are forced to challenge what your eyes have seen.

I would have to disagree with London, above. Art is not in the eye of the beholder, nor is it in the eye of the creator. TASTE is in the eye of the beholder and the creator. You are perfectly free to like, or dislike, whatever you want. However, it is extremely conceited to call something art simply because you like it, or simply because you created it. If that were so, then anything that was ever created would be art, because somebody likes it.

Art touches the human emotions. Art communicates emotion from the artists to the perceiver. Regular exposure to QUALITY art makes one into a more sensitive person, able to better perceive and understand the emotions in other people. Take note that NOT every painting, sculpture, photograph, song, etc., is truly quality art. Just who determines what is, and what is not, quality art is a full other discussion, so I will omit that for now.

The accepted fine arts are: painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, cinema, theater (plays), dance, literature, and music. If magic is ever to be considered a fine art, it must strive for consistently higher quality performances aimed at touching the emotions of the viewer.

The magic of Dai Vernon, Cardini, and many others through the ages created an intense emotion of awe and wonder for the viewers. There is no doubt that the high level of skill and an emotional presentation is what created that response. Early David Copperfield created more than awe; his little theatrical vignettes merged magic with drama (mini-plays) to make full emotional statements to the viewers. However, he had to add that drama to his magic to make that happen. Perhaps magic is not complete enough in itself; perhaps it lacks enough emotional impact without music, theater, dance, etc., to function as a fine art. Even opera and Broadway musical, which are total amalgams of music, literature (libretto/script), theater, and painting/architecture (set design), are not considered fine arts, but rather amalgams. However, magic has a capability that it shares with music, theater, and dance: it happens in real-time. The performance is freshly re-created each time, and then it is gone forever. That real-time ability to create emotional response is much more powerful than the other six art forms (again, this is a whole other discussion, so I'll stop here).

But I digress. There are certainly magicians today of such high caliber: Tommy Wonder, Michael Ammar, and many others who can create that deep sense of awe and wonder. Going deeper than that to touch a fuller spectrum of emotions is tough. Jugglers and Tightrope Walkers create awe and wonder, too. Magic will have to go beyond its current levels of emotional depth to ever be considered a fine art.

Respectfully submitted,

Jon

Soul, man ... soul....

A few dictionary definitions of art, all of which can easily be applied to magic...

- Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

- The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty.

- High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

- Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.

Of course, what separates good art from bad art is a whole different debate...

Spider is 'right on'.
If art were solely in the eye of the beholder, then there could be no art schools, no critics, no art galleries, no art reviews, none of that -- because to have any of those things there must be some sort of base line.

Art is a form of communication; it may be two ways, between the artist and the viewer, or it may be one way -- from the artist, or by the viewer (they may be communicating different things).

You may not like what is being communicated (that's where personal preference comes in).

The artist may not communicate very well (that's where skill comes in).

But, good or bad, it's still a FORM of communication.

As magic should be.

And that's what would make it art.

By anyone's definition of the word "art".

Art (whether "fine art" or not) seems to be something that brings wonder and magic into our lives. Someone once said that music wipes away the dust of daily life, and I think the same could be said of artistic writing, painting, performing, and so on.

I am probably just putting in different words what has already been said here, but
I still find a DEEP irony here:

Who talks most about wonder and magic in the course of their art or craft?

Who should, therefore, do the most to inflame the emotions, imagination, and mind?

We magicians!
We magicians!

alleycat

Spider, that was a wonderful post...
I would love to hear the other arguments...

I would like to argue while magic is an art, it goes further than that... (pun intended)

When someone looks at arts done in their perfect platonic form, even then they can be decerned as a replication of...

No matter how perfect a statue or painting is, the observer still recognises it as a painting or Sculpture. Someone may have to walk into a wall to realize that it is a photograph, or speak to a statue, but they will still eventually realize it is not reality...

Magic on the other hand, when done perfectly,upon closer examination becomes enhanced. The platonic form of magic leaves the observer having witnessed something that is reality to them...

Drew

This may be the only proper place to post something like this...

It is a quote from "The Art of Angling" paraphrased..

but that Magic is an art, and an [art]worth your learning. The question is rather, whether you be capable of learning it? magic is somewhat like poetry, men are to be born so: I mean, with inclinations to it, though both may be heightened by discourse and practice: but he that hopes to be a good magician, must not only bring an inquiring, searching, observing wit, but he must bring a large measure of hope and patience, and a love and propensity to the art itself; but having once got and practiced it, then doubt not but magic will prove to be so pleasant, that it will prove to be, like virtue, a reward to itself.

It has inspired me over the past year, and I hope it does the same for some of you...

Ojasa