|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Hey Guys:
I have a question: is there such a thing as a tradition of magic we might call "serious" or "high art" and if so, what is it? In most arts there is a traditional distinction between high art and popular art. Some examples: ballet vs. tap, symphonies vs. folk songs, literature vs. pulp fiction and comic books. I blogged on the topic here: http://www.magicaonline.com/film_and_magic_blog.htm . I'd appreciate your thoughts on the topic. Thanks! -Chris |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
In answer to Chris Philpott's inquiry:
-----begin quote----- Is there such a thing as a tradition of magic we might call "serious" or "high art" and if so, what is it? In most arts there is a traditional distinction between high art and popular art. Some examples: ballet vs. tap, symphonies vs. folk songs, literature vs. pulp fiction and comic books. -----end quote----- I believe that it is the performer, not the art form itself, that determines whether a performing art is “high art.” As I think I've pointed out on the Café before, the best evidence I can provide to support my contention is Mikhail Baryshnikov's comment on the occasion of the presentation of the American Film Institute's Life Achievement Award to Fred Astaire in 1981: "I have been invited to say something about how dancers feel about Fred Astaire," Baryshnikov said. "It's no secret. We hate him. He gives us complexes, because he's too perfect. His perfection is an absurdity that's hard to face.” For one of the world's premier ballet dancers to say that about a motion picture dancer is an acknowledgment that, as I said, art is most often more a quality of the performer than the venue. I would have no qualms in saying that Channing Pollock's act is high art. He was, after all, invited to perform at the wedding of Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier. I also think that Robert-Houdin deserves some credit for elevating the art of magic in the minds of the public. (Yes, I know that Houdini tried to downplay Robert-Houdin's role in _The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin_. But to borrow a phrase from Henrik Ibsen, I think Houdini was more “jealous than zealous.”) And I would also say that Tom Mullica's magic is as high an art as Moliere's comedies. So even a comedy magic act like Tomsoni's would IMHO be considered high art. Granted, there are bad magicians--no doubt many more than we would like to admit--whose performances make magic seem like anything but Art. But the same can be said of any art form. Surely you've had to listen to god-awful singers, right? But their miserable voices do not diminish the artistic level of a Luciano Pavarotti or a Bing Crosby. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Hey Sonny, thanks for the thoughtful response. In the blog post I linked to I make the same argument that I think you’re making. “High art” or “serious art” is not the same thing as “good art”. I’m not sure how many people still believe the so-called high arts, like ballet or classical music are inherently better than the popular arts – certainly not as many as back when Baryshnikov made the statement you quoted. The idea seems implicit in his statement “We hate him”, as if it was such a remarkable thing that someone from the tap/Broadway popular tradition like Astaire could be as good as or better than a ballet dancer. I’m not sure how many ballet dancers on “So You Think You Can Dance” would think it was so remarkable to be outperformed by someone from a pop tradition, when ballet dancers routinely lose to dancers from hip hop and other popular styles.
While I believe a popular artist can be as great as a so-called high or serious artist, that doesn't mean I think the distinction between the two terms is meaningless. Tom Mullica seems to be more in the popular tradition of physical comedians, from clowning to Red Skelton to Jim Carrey. He might be as good as Moliere, but I’m not sure what he owes to that style of high comedy. Channing Pollack is an interesting example. To borrow your Baryshnikov/Astaire contrast, is Pollock more of a Baryshnikov (a master of a respected tradition) or an Astaire (a respected master of a popular tradition)? I’m not sure. Or, if the contrast between ballet/popular dance or classical music/pop music has no meaningful equivalent in magic, is there a kind “art magic” the way there is art film? As I wrote in the article I linked to, “cinema, being born as the old class system was falling apart, never really bought the notion that that "high art" equaled "good art". Most cineastes revere Hollywood directors like Hitchcock and Scorsese right along side the giants of art film like Bergman and Kiarostami… Now to magic: it seems to me that while there's certainly a lot of artistry in magic, there's no real tradition of "high art" or anything we could call "art magic". Put another way, if Dai Vernon was magic's John Ford, who is magic's Ingmar Bergman? Who is the slow, serious artist who makes the audience meet him half way?” -Chris |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
Chris, I think Channing Pollock is on the "high art" end of the spectrum, if only because of the story about performing at Grace Kelly's wedding. I can't think of many magic acts that would be of an artistic calibre like that. As to "Who is magic's Ingmar Bergman..." Maybe Cardini. The audience met him half way in suspending their disbelief about his character--an inebriated gentleman--and his magical artistry--the remarkable sleight of hand skill and routining. I do think, too, that audiences sense that in an act like Cardini's the magic is produced because of the magician's skill, not because of "smoke and mirrors." They can tell the difference between a magician who steps out on stage with no props and is still able to mystify as opposed to a magician who steps out on stage with a table with a square circle on it. I have heard lay people actually say that they appreciate what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an act that requires dexterity as opposed to an act that requires elaborate boxes and other similar apparatus.
As I wrote in a yet-unpublished treatise on magic theory, there is a kind of hierarchy of magical effects. The example I gave is magically producing a silk handkerchief. The most magical method is to reach an empty hand into the air and produce it. A much less magical method is to show a tube empty, cap the ends with tissue paper, and then break the tissue to produce the handkerchief. Between them is a range of several other methods, such as producing a wrinkled handkerchief from a TT or 6th f----r. On the other hand I pointed out in my treatise that although it would be visually striking to touch something and change it to gold a la King Midas, the closest thing that ever existed in the real world to a legitimate way to do that is the huge oven (called an "athanor") used by alchemists to "supposedly" change base metal into gold (see a picture of one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athanor.jpg I don't think any lay audience would enjoy seeing a magician change a bar of lead into a bar of gold using an oven-like device, but obviously if anyone could do that "for real," the world would beat a path to his door and accept him as a genuine magician. I hope the above makes a little sense. As to whether Channing Pollock would be considered an "Astaire" or a "Baryshnikov"--I think to the lay public he would be considered an Astaire. (BTW, did you know that Fred Astaire adopted the tails tailoring with a longer tail cut because he saw Cardini's wardrobe tailored that way? I can't remember where I read that. Maybe in the John Fisher biography of Cardini. Yes, I just checked. On page 25 of the Fisher biography we read: "Dai Vernon was fond of repeating the the story--confirmed by Cardini to his friend Donald Smith in later years--that the idea of wearing tails that were extra long was acquired by Fred from Cardini on the vaudeville circuits of the late Twenties.") But regardless of how the lay public would perceive a performer's persona, it is a tribute for one artist to regard another artist in such high esteem. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Well said, Sonny. And a great anecdote about Cardini and Astaire!
-Chris |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
? is Our Magic out of print/unavailable?
Much comment on high/normal/copying therein.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
_Our Magic_ is available as a pdf from lybrary.com for $8.
http://www.lybrary.com/our-magic-p-138.html amazon.com lists copies of the physical book ranging from $100 to $500.
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
I think one of the things that determines whether a performing art is "high art" is the evidence of published print material that addresses the theory behind the art. There have been many books past and present that do just that, ranging from books like _Our Magic_ and John Booth's _Forging Ahead in Magic_ to Eberhard Riese's _Foundations: The Art of Staging Magic_. Louis Haley also wrote a fine booklet called _The Actor-Magician Essays_ which is also available on CD with other similar works of magic theory.
http://dennymagic.com/store/true-secrets......-cd.html I believe in one of his interviews in one of the magic magazines, David Copperfield made a comment about what it would take for magic to be accepted as a genuine art. I think he said specifically that magic needs a book like the one Uta Hagen wrote for another performing art: _Respect for Acting_. I've been waiting for someone to write a book called _Respect for Magic_. To a certain extent I think the Booth and Riese books among others do a good job addressing that need. I also think that the respect for magic as "high art" goes back at least to Robert-Houdin's _Comment on devient sorcier: les secrets de la prestidigitation et de la magie_ in which we find the famous quote about a prestidigitator being an actor playing the role of a magician. I also think that an important component of the validation of the art in magic is we as performers perceiving it as such in our own minds. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
I never finished reading Our Magic -- I'll put it closer to the top of the pile of books beside my bed, Jonathan.
I have a lot more familiarity with film theory and criticism than similar works in magic. One thing that strikes me is that when an art is gaining respect, it's the more obviously arty works that are the first to be held up as worthy of study. But as art matures, there seems to be more respect for the popular works. Sight and Sound has a critics poll every ten years and this year was the first time that the film in number one spot was a genre film, Hitchcock's Vertigo. Brilliant film, endlessly fascinating. Perhaps there's something similar going on in magic. To me, the best magic show of the year was An Evening with Derek Delgaudio and Helder Guimaraes (I wrote about it in the last issue of Magic Magazine). If card tricks are to magic what a genre film is to cinema, then -- wait, I lost my train of thought... |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
Chris makes an interesting point when he commented that "One thing that strikes me is that when an art is gaining respect, it's the more obviously arty works that are the first to be held up as worthy of study." I think it was Kipling who in the poem "The Conundrum of the Workshops" coined the phrase" "It's pretty, but is it art?" But notice Chris's qualification "the first to be held up as worthy of study." He does not say "first and only." Eventually less obviously arty works get their due recognition, perhaps because it is subtle rather than blatant.
In an art history course that I took in college, art was defined as "anything made by the hand of man." Interestingly, some things that were made by the hand of man may not have been considered art when they were first produced, but acquired that status over the course of history. Much of art--both visual and literary--began as--MAGIC! There is a theory that the first images painted on cave walls by Cro-magnon "artists" were not put there to exhibit "art," but as iconic images intended to magically insure success in hunting. Although it is the "more obviously arty works" that are held up as "art," I think the value of all good art eventually receives its recognition. Perhaps it is only coincidence that the word "image" has the word "mage" as its root. Or is it perhaps a freudian slip? And why is it that an Andy Warhol painting of a Campbell's soup can is "art"--but the commercial artist who designed the soup can label in the first place goes unheralded and unsung? I think there is a definite "emperor's new clothes" aspect to defining art in the sense that we are told by "authorities in their respective fields" what is and isn't art. I strongly feel that art, like beauty, is in the eye and the mind of the beholder. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez N.B. Here's the first stanza of the Kipling poem I referenced: When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
This link for Ricky Jay's appearance at the Folger Shakespeare Library:
http://www.folger.edu/woSummary.cfm?woid=765 would seem to validate magic as High Art, wouldn't you think? After all, it was the Bard himself who wrote: "If this be magic, let it be an art!" (_The Winter's Tale, Act V, Scene III) ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Not sure I agree. High culture is a very particular thing (there's a pretty good article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture ). I don't think there's any shame in magic not being a high art. Anyway, I'm off to see Rob Zabrecky's new show tomorrow night -- I can't think of any other contemporary magician who challenges his audience more than he does so perhaps I'll have a new perspective in 24 hours!
|
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
Even a clown is capable of bringing high art.
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
There is an interesting discussion of "high and low art" at
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?......2AAgdHkR addressing the question: What is the difference between "high" and "low" art? One of the comments there is: "High art would be something considered culturally significant, and something a well-informed person should know about. For example, The Mona Lisa, Shakespeare's plays, Mozart. Low art would be more entertainment-for-the-masses kind of work: pulp fiction, Britney Spears music, something along those lines." I think, though, there is a wide spectrum of "art" between the music of Mozart and the music of Britney Spears. There is an interesting story about Beethoven at http://www.songsofpeace.com/ncmcmusic/mus319/lecture1.htm that notes: "Beethoven not only refused to enter the servant’s entrance, as had previous musicians of great stature (such as Haydn and Mozart), but expected to be seated at table next to the princes who employed him." Beethoven's attitude presaged Eleanor Roosevelt's comment that "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." It is perhaps of interest to note that the "bow" at the end of any theatrical performance is similar to the tradition of bowing in the presence of one's superiors. I do think that entertainers in general were often held in lower esteem than many other professions. On his "In the Works" webpage http://johnbannonmagic.com/intheworks.html John Bannon has an interesting quote that may be of some relevance. He provides this quote from G. Cardano on card tricks, De Subilitate, 1554: "And although this art is so wonderful, still it is held in no honor . . . The reasons are various, it seems to me; first, the art is concerned with useless matters; second, it is practiced by men of low degree." There may be some insight also to be derived from this quote from the film _Finding Forrester_. Jamal has asked Forrester why he reads _The New York Times_ as well as _The National Enquirer_. The award-winning author replies: "The Times is dinner, The National Enquirer is dessert." I am reminded too of a Life Magazine article in which President John F. Kennedy was asked to list his ten favorite books. Along with books about Lincoln and John Quincy Adams among others, Kennedy included Ian Fleming's James Bond novel _From Russia with Love_. I suppose that Kennedy would have considered Lincoln and Adams as "dinner" and Fleming as "dessert." And it was very gratifying in the film _The Illusionist_ when the magician Eisenheim won the heart of Duchess Sophie von Teschen ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
David Charvet Special user www.charvetmagic.com 501 Posts |
In the words of Billy McComb: "Art, for art's sake. Money, for God's sake!"
|
|||||||||
Rainboguy Inner circle 1915 Posts |
In my humble opinion, the performance of Magic is an art form which should be honored as such by the magicians who perform it...in respect and acknowledgment of their audiences, but perhaps, more importantly, in respect to those magicians of the past who helped elevate the art.
There is a reason that John Northern Hilliard wrote of "The Procession of The Mages" in Greater Magic. |
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Wow, there's a lot of food for thought here. Let me pick up one thread, the idea that Shakespeare is high art. Certainly he is considered so now, but he came of age when there was no significant tradition of English drama as art. The dramatists of the court tried to revive the traditions of Greek and Roman theater and they were the ones to get respect, at least when Shakespeare was young. Shakespeare was alone among the leading dramatists of his age in that he never went to university. He wasn't bound by traditional ways of doing things. He fused high and low tendencies in the art and in so doing forged a new and modern approach to art. Will In the World by Stephen Greenblatt, my favorite of the many Shakespeare bios I've read (I'm kind of obsessed with him), really gets into the mindset of the actor who played Kings on stage and yet was dismissed as a lowly actor, the scum of society, a man who knew he was a better writer than the members of the elite (even King James was an author) but still had to bow and scrape before them, and yet a man who used these resentments to spur him on to a greatness never imagined before in English drama -- or any drama of the classical world -- and became not only the wealthiest dramatist of the age but also the most respected, the first to head an acting company to have the monarch as their patron.
The tastes and biases of any age are peculiar and fleeting - art which is not considered particularly important to one age and class can become very respected over time, while the things that once were adored are now dismissed. But still, there is a distinction to be made between the art that challenges us and the art that tries to entertain first and build from there. I can point to a number of great magicians who are in the Shakespeare mode, trying to combine commerce and artistry, but not so many in the mode of a Keats, Van Gogh or Bergman who demand that the audience understand them. Not that there's anything wrong with that! |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
Chris makes a valid point when he wrote: "I can point to a number of great magicians who are in the Shakespeare mode, trying to combine commerce and artistry, but not so many in the mode of a Keats, Van Gogh or Bergman who demand that the audience understand them. Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Sometimes, too, great art is recognized only through the perspective of time. I think Van Gogh sold only one painting during his lifetime, becoming recognized as a great artist only (unfortunately) after his death. I think it's important to remember the words of another entertainer: But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself (Ricky Nelson, "Garden Party") ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Fascinating, fascinating topic!
I recently watched a British documentary from a few years ago called, “Hustlers, Hoaxsters, Pranksters, Jokesters and Ricky Jay.” In one segment, we hear from Bob Neale, a Professor of Psychology and Religion. After extolling Ricky Jay’s grace with a deck of cards, he goes on to say: “But Ricky is also a great, great scholar. Particularly the Western European tradition of all sorts of Ragamuffins. Magicians, con-artists, freaks – various kinds - who do ‘low-level’ entertainment for the masses. He is a deep historian in this area who knows it all and thinks carefully and wisely about it. So, he brings together, in his performances, and his love, both the incredible physical skill and grace and this intellectual awareness of a con man and the minor artists who entertain us. He brings the two together; in his presentations.” Ricky Jay is then shown perusing the shelves of a well-stocked library. Prompted by the off-camera documentary interlocutor, a smiling Ricky Jay Jay says: “I’m actually looking at my own magazine – is that allowed? This is ‘Jay’s Journal of Anomalies.’ I have to confess that I take some sort of cumulative pleasure at seeing each new issue here on the racks of the ones which preceded it. It’s literally a personal reflection of what interests me. ..on this playbill – we did this before we even launched the magazine - and it calls it, ‘A quarterly periodical devoted to the investigation of conjurers, cheats, hustlers, hoaxters, pranksters, jokesters, imposters, pretenders, side-show showmen, armless calligraphers, mechanical marvels and popular entertainments.’ And that’s literally the scope of what interests me. Literally. So, I’m planning issues in the future – one on cheating at bowling, which goes back to the 16th century…” I would suggest that perhaps some magicians are a bit prickly about the sometimes sordid, sketchy provenance of the “art” of magic. If you have seen Ricky Jay perform (“Ricky Jay and His 52 Assistants” is a fine example), you clearly see a magician who celebrates what writer Luc Sante called “Low Life.” Yet, Mr. Jay elevates the performance, bringing it into the realm of the most elegant drawing room. The seedier roots of magic come to us through the mists of history, filled with Ragamuffins and Vagabonds. These roots do not invalidate a performance designed to appeal to the most sophisticated audience in a luxurious setting. I would humbly argue that the implicate power of the art of magic is all the more compelling because it has the vigorous roots of “the street” at its core. Make magic too genteel and it can be bloodless, detached, sterile. Celebrate the “Low Life” at its heart and magic will always have vigor; it will always endure, intrigue, fascinate and captivate. My two cents…
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
Chris Philpott Special user 502 Posts |
Good point, Panlives -- the dirtier corners of the history of magic are an infinite resource for modern magicians. Interesting that when Ricky Jay's Rogue's Gallery played here, the first thing the LA Times called it was "classy" -- and it was! Elegant, refined entertainment with a very contemporary artistic flair all centered on the low down and dirty historical curiosities that Jay loves. He's doing something similar to what Quentin Tarantino did with Pulp Fiction -- embrace the less respected parts of our history and elevate that into art -- and Tarantino did it so well it ended up winning the top prize at that temple of art film, the Cannes Film Festival.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magicians of old » » The "High Art" of Magic (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < |