|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
ViolinKing Veteran user a loyal user has no more than 307 Posts |
Channing Pollock performed at Grace Kelly's wedding and ergo propter hoc high art?
High art is that which preserves the integrity of the wand. A very sophisticated gentleman can be very high up in society, but he'll never be as high up as someone with a wand. A magician in white tie is at his level if everyone is in formalwear. If he is at his level, what makes him a magician? |
|||||||||
Jim Sparx Inner circle Far Out, Texas 1144 Posts |
"The thermometer of success is merely the jealousy of the malcontents."
- Salvador Dali -
Et tu, Spartacus?
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/chispadeelpaso.html |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-11-25 13:18, Chris Philpott wrote: Going back into the mists of history: "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." - G. Cardano on card tricks, De Subilitate, 1554
"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. |
|||||||||
Octopus Sun Special user Wiggle Wiggle 586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-11-26 01:40, ViolinKing wrote: Where did you get this definition from, I'd like to know your reasoning behind this. I don't agree, you may want to read Chapter 2 of Maskelyne's "Our Magic" for the correct true definition of High Art. One just can't create their own definitions for terms that already have an accepted values. A Magi with that white tie and a wand thinks they are preforming "High Art" just because he wears a costume? NO. That same magi with a tie and wand is usually an imitator as most Magi preforming their "False Art" |
|||||||||
ViolinKing Veteran user a loyal user has no more than 307 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-11-27 21:21, Octopus Sun wrote: "Begone foul imitator, and those that define High Art as they see fit. Begone! loathsome performers, conjuring definitions and mercilessly treating their audience with disregard. Cast away, to a land where pulls snap, and thumb tips are too small. Where doves cast excrement upon the hand and rabbits bite at the fingers with their... Look at the bones! The ten thousand marching army of formal dressed men-in-costume-which-is-not-at-all-befitting, believing most spuriously that definitions are originate of man, that high art is a debatable term, that input into the topic of magic is a pastime, having not studied at the feet of the mentor, having not grown weary practicing the duodecuple lift, having not read at least ten pages in a well lit room, having not achieved the blessing of the mentor upon having achieved the blessed state of 'no-palm', having not solved the riddle of the pass, begone you half magicians, you unworthy scourge of the music hall, unworthy of the back bar room littered with the remains of the last magician who said 'the clean one' whose ropes were weary of even having ever been made. Unworthy of the unwashed streets of Babylon, unworthy of even Enron accounting, you blight upon the really reflective surface that is the polished shot glass of magic." |
|||||||||
Octopus Sun Special user Wiggle Wiggle 586 Posts |
You can't even defend your incorrect use of terms.
You are def a false artist. spouting nonsense and utter drivel defend yourself and your IGNORANT stance. as it says in Our Magic... In magic, as elsewhere, false art is the art which imitates art. It is an imitation of an imitation. An illustration of this may be given by means of a familiar analogy in connection with painting. Pictures painted by the great masters are frequently reproduced by students and by professional copyists. Many of the copies thus executed are, in all practical respects, facsimiles of the original pictures from which they were copied. Yet nobody, in his sober senses, could possibly regard those copies, however faithful they may be, as works of true art. The originals are works of high art. The copies are works of false art; except, of course, that they have the merit of honesty. They are admittedly nothing more than copies. As in painting, so also in magic. To produce a magical effect of original conception is a work of high art. It imitates the exercise of magical powers, by means and in a manner conceived by the artist who produced it. To reproduce a magical effect, exactly as already conceived and executed by an artist in magic, is false art. It merely imitates the original imitation; and, in actual value, is just as worthless as a painting copied from another painting. Any weakling may be taught how to do that kind of thing; and, having learned his lesson, may earn an income equivalent to the value of a weakling's work. In spite of the truth of the foregoing statements, many of those who practise magic, either as a means of livelihood or as an intellectual recreation, appear to be entirely ignorant of the very existence of facts such as those we have reviewed. In all probability, those men would feel highly offended were any doubt cast upon their claim to be regarded as artists. Yet, in all they do, they prove themselves to be mere mechanics. They can do just what somebody else has already done-and they can do nothing more. Such men are not artists. They cannot be; since, in all their works, the only kind of art displayed is the false art, which is an imitation of real art. Normal Art in Magic. Obviously, it is the art which employs familiar means to produce its own especial results. Normal Art of every kind, when reduced to its true basis, consists in that and nothing more. Certain subjects and certain methods are common property. babble on and begone yourself you have no footing here whatsoever your past posts prove it. |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-11-28 13:18, Octopus Sun wrote: Octopus Sun, I think the OP was asking about “high” art vs. “popular” art. When did this become a debate about originality vs. copying?
"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. |
|||||||||
Octopus Sun Special user Wiggle Wiggle 586 Posts |
Read or reread "Our Magic" and what others have stated
throughout the forum current and past. Our Magic explains exactly what is described as High Art, Normal Art, and False Art. etc. imo Normal Art, is equal to or similar to so called “popular” art. If not, then what is the Correct definition of this “popular” art? Like I asked Violin "Where did you get your this definition from, I'd like to know your reasoning behind this." that's all. Terms in Magic are set in Stone, and we just can't change them to suit a fantasy whim. white gloves, Black Suit, and wand. That's just wrong. Then Violin comes back and resorts to name calling, I find that kinda trollish, and I'll bite. As of yet, I still don't see how a Magi, in a black suit and white gloves carrying a wand on stage make them High Artists vs a True Magi who has spent their life creating Real High Art. All I asked was for some clarification, and he couldn't provide anything relevant to his post. All he did was cut and paste some nonsense. |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
Interestingly, I think the evolution of art had its roots in magic--from the paintings on cave walls to the chants sung by our prehistoric ancestors. So in a sense, art of any kind owes its existence to magic. There might not be any art at all--visual or musical--if there had not first been magic.
And I've asked before--why is it that a painting like this one by Roy Lichtenstein http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/ar......000Z.jpg is "Art" but the work of comic book artists whom he is imitating (or making fun of) is only "art" (or not even "art")? Why is it that a painting of a Campbell's soup can by Andy Warhol is "Art," but the commercial artist who designed the label in the first place is--well, a forgotten commercial artist whose artistic merit has never received any recognition? There seems to be a definite "emperor's new clothes" syndrome here--that people are telling us what we should recognize as "Art" rather than letting each individual experience the appreciation of art on their own terms from their own perspective. And yes, I think the fact that Channing Pollock performed at the request of a royal family is indeed a tribute to his artistry as a magician. Years later he sat with Princess Stéphanie of Monaco in a theater box watching Joseph Gabriel do his dove act. Princesses do not sit in a royal box with "men of low degree" watching a show. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
duanebarry Special user 883 Posts |
"High art" may simply be that which pleases the upper classes.
Consequently much "high art" deals with loss and failure, since these are the fears of the upper classes -- vicarious thrills for them to experience via art, rather than the living the genuine desperation of day-to-day life. Magic, as usually performed, has little loss or failure to offer. Rather it is a nonstop performance of triumphs. That makes for a pretty boring narrative arc. The "magician in trouble" bit is nearly the only toe dipped in that pool, but it frequently feels fake and is almost invariably swiftly resolved with a corrected triumph before moving on to the next effect. |
|||||||||
ViolinKing Veteran user a loyal user has no more than 307 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-02 14:54, Anatole wrote: I disagree. A man of low degree is still a man. A man of high degree is still a man. Channing pollock performing in evening dress is still a man and the apparent social status is irrelevant concerning magic. |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-05 16:31, ViolinKing wrote: “…apparent social status is irrelevant concerning magic.” Perhaps, perhaps not. Whereas I admire your idealism, the world works by a different set of notions. You can be certain that what Sonny wrote is largely correct. The Royals will share their turf with people who have a certain perceived status…or if not, to be seen as being either charitable or egalitarian.
"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. |
|||||||||
ViolinKing Veteran user a loyal user has no more than 307 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-06 10:22, panlives wrote: This doesn't make any sense. If I can be certain, and I'm not, then what are you accusing me of? |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-04 14:30, duanebarry wrote: Not as far as I know. From Jean Michelle Basquiet to Alex Calder, Al Baker to Jarrow - their audiences were not royalty.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
duanebarry Special user 883 Posts |
Basquiat and Calder's works sell for millions. They have the stamp of approval from the monied classes. They thus become "high" art.
Ricky Jay's performances of his 52 Assistants show were notable not just for their content, but also for their audiences. By performing in comfortable fashion for the wealthy cognoscenti (or at least wealthy celebrities), Ricky similarly gained that same imprimatur. |
|||||||||
duanebarry Special user 883 Posts |
As a cultural product, art is a matter of definition.
Who has the power to declare what is art (or high/low art), AND to have others follow their lead and agree? There may be other components as well, but generally there is considerable wealth involved. |
|||||||||
ViolinKing Veteran user a loyal user has no more than 307 Posts |
||||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-12-12 12:25, ViolinKing wrote: Great link! Thank you!
"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. |
|||||||||
Anatole Inner circle 1912 Posts |
Revisiting the question of whether the performance of magic is an art or a craft...
There is an interesting February 8, 2017 interview at the Forbes Magazine website titled: David Copperfield: How He Became The World's Most Successful Magician where Dan Schawbel is interviewing David and they have this exchange: -----quote----- Schawbel: After decades performing magic on TV and in front of crowds, what keeps you motivated? Are you still honing your craft ? Copperfield: I love creating experiences that haven't been seen or felt before, and if I get it right, I’ll be pushing my art forward. I’m blessed and cursed with never being satisfied. -----unquote----- Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/......30674b63 Note how Schwabel phrases the question from the perspective of magic as a craft, whereas Copperfield responds from the perspective of magic as an art. IThe question will likely never be satisfactorily resolved, but I do think if you ask people who are performing artists in other fields--song, dance, etc--they would agree that magic is an art. ----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
----- Sonny Narvaez
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magicians of old » » The "High Art" of Magic (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |