|
|
jkvand Special user Johnstown, PA 658 Posts |
I am almost finished reading Jay Sankey's new book, "Beyond Secrets." I am very impressed, and highly recommend it. It really got me thinking about magic- not only how I perform it, but also how I perceive it.
One of his essays, called "Is magic an art?" really got me thinking. Here are some of my thoughts: 1. Is Magic an Art? More important question: Can magic be artistic? Yes Art is self-expression, so if you are expressing yourself in your magic, then your magic is art and you are an artist. This seems to be the premise of Sankey's thoughts. If you are not expressing yourself through your magic, you may be entertaining, but not an artist. My question is, so what? I'm not concerned with being an artist, I'm concerned with being a performer. My goal is not to express myself, but rather to entertain the audience. I don't think magic has to be an art form under Sankey's definition. I think magic can be, but I don't think it is diminished if it is simply a form of entertainment. What if your self-expression sucks? Are you still an artist? According to Sankey, I guess so. What if you're a great performer who entertains your audience, but you aren't really concerned with expressing yourself, you're just having fun? Are you still a magician? I'm curious about your thoughts on this, and any other things this book got you thinking about. |
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
One thing that I fail to see is a clear definition of what an artist IS.
Is an artist one whose work takes the breath away of the viewing audience? Is it the work of one who crafts their presentation in such a way as to express their inner feelings or someone who wants to reach into the minds or souls of that same audience? Is it someone who can bring laughter? Shock? Amazement? An artist is a person who cares passionately about their art, works diligently to perfect that art and uses that art to communicate what the artist CHOOSES to communicate, IMHO. My father was a commercial artist and cartoonist for most of his adult life. He was considered a past-master with pen and ink and something called line & benday technique. His work was clear, related to what he was illustrating or making fun of or with and it was consistent in its technical quality. He also made a pretty good buck doing it. But, when he had a showing at the "prestigious Oak Park, (IL) Art League," two blue haired old ladies who were officers of the organization simply said, on viewing his work - "Oh, he's merely a commercial artist," in a tone that made it abundantly clear that he was beneath the standards of a "true" art organization. The fact that he had work in text books all across the country, work in the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry as one of the major cartoon artists in Chicago and at least one Pulitzer Prize nomination, didn't matter. He was, in their eyes, NOT an artist. Artistry comes in many flavors. Anyone who ever watched Red Skelton on his classic TV show, would have no doubt in their minds that he was an ARTIST. But in society at the time, he was looked upon as a carnival clown. He could make you laugh or cry, or do both at once in a manner that was seemingly effortless, yet, on analysis, was nothing short of genius and that genius undoubtedly took great effort to protray on the limiting medium of television. But, in the eyes of society, he was a clown, not an artist. "If this be art, let me roll myself in it and be displayed for all the world to see and enjoy!" - me. Art is usually not decided by the generation that lives with it. Picasso was something of an exception. Many of the Impressionist Masters were considered not only not to be artists, but to be blasphemous, idiotic and untalented. The nature of art, in many ways, is measured by the impact on, not the cognocenti, the "knowing ones," but by the rest of society - well after the artist is gone. And that is sad. More on this later, I'm afraid. I've waxed too philosophical for one night. Cancelled gigs do that to me, sometimes. And waxy philosophers tend to turn yellow in the sunlight. Lee Darrow, C.Ht. http://www.leedarrow.com
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
Stuart Hooper Special user Mithrandir 759 Posts |
Tsk Tsk Lee, quoting youself already? Come join the workshop! I want to hear more!
|
bg Veteran user Indy 313 Posts |
I've just received the book and I'm very disappointed. The material covered is good and he makes good points but no topic is thoroughly expounded upon. Most topics don't even a full page worth of discussion.
It seems as if Jay has been keeping a random thoughts notebook and decided to publish them. There seems to be no conection from topic to topic. This book is very overpriced. It seems to me that Jay is putting out new stuff like it's comming off an assembly line and this book is an example of something that was put together quickly and for maximum profit. Just my opinion but if you're thinking of getting this book I'd look for a second choice. Brian |
jkvand Special user Johnstown, PA 658 Posts |
I agree with you to a point - it does seem that Sankey was just getting warmed up in a lot of his essays, and then abruptly cut it short. However, what that does then is make the reader have to continue the train of thought and fill in the gaps, and perhaps that is what Sankey's intent was. This book certainly didn't provide all the answers, but it raised a lot of questions and really got me thinking about how I would answer some of those questions.
|
Euan Inner circle 1041 Posts |
"One thing that I fail to see is a clear definition of what an artist IS"
Here's an easy one to remember "An artist is he who creates art" |
bg Veteran user Indy 313 Posts |
In publishing having the "reader think for themselves" is code for short text. I would have perfered Jay write in detail what he thinks and I can make up my mind whether I agree with him or not.
This seems to me a very easy and lazy way to write a book. |
sirbrad Inner circle PA 2096 Posts |
If this book was 200 pages longer, it would be a 10! Until then, it is a 9.
The great trouble with magicians is the fact that they believe when they have bought a certain trick or piece of apparatus, and know the method or procedure, that they are full-fledged mystifiers. -- Harry Houdini
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Books, Pamphlets & Lecture Notes » » Thoughts on Sankey's new book (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |