Gentlemen, there is another term for magic in the theater that no one has brought up and that term is "convention."

..it must be short of "conviction" because you don't want the matter completely closed. You want equal "conviction" in the opposite (cued with "the conventions of Theater")...

....The dilemma is created by the artist's ability to balance complete conviction of the impossible against the subject's understanding of the conventions of theater...

On 2006-05-28 19:23, Lee Darrow wrote:
Gentlemen, there is another term for magic in the theater that no one has brought up and that term is "convention." ...

In some countries, the cultural conventions aren't the same, and charlatans and entertainers are not easily distinguished. In a place like that, the dilemma has to be set up by the performer.

We are really talking about agreement here.

Jon is right, I think--though I believe he is only talking about one artistic choice of several possible.

One can attempt to force agreement to a premise: "See? The knife is black on both sides." The use of the paddle move enables you to "prove" this to the spectator.

But in asking for direct "agreement" to the premise, the performer may awaken the spectator's desire to confirm the proposition: "Let me see the knife."

The more artistic work is creating compelling arguments "for" the conclusion. At least this is how I understood Jon, and he can correct me if I am wrong.

For example, instead of "asking for agreement," the performer forms the question in his own head, turns the knife up as if to check for himself that the knife is black on both sides.

The performer doesn't "show" the knife to the spectator at all, but the spectator "sees" and notes that the knife is black on both sides.

Since the performer does not ask for agreement to the proposition, the spectator is in a much more receptive and less critical mode as he "makes a mental note" that the knife is black on both sides.

This is very similar to the example Jon used of "flying through a window frame."

This does the proving without the role of the performer as "prover," and without directly asking the audience for "agreement."

The audience basically is forming the argument in their own heads from the information that is being presented to them, rather than being force-fed the syllogism from the performer.

I think there are times however, when the proof can be directed at the spectator in a challenging way--especially when you are "clean."

I love that last sentence:

"If the argument (or proof if you use the word loosely) forms IN the minds of the audience, they are less likely to argue with YOU later about it when they find themselves on the horns of the dilemma."

Yes. I think we are in agreement here, Jon. But I would probably want to make a case that there are other valid approaches to getting agreement, and that the direct challenge is sometimes both an artistic and necessary choice.

This is like the difference between a "hook" and a "come-on" in a con game. A hook is something discovered by the sucker on his own (the corner is bent) whereas the come-on is an offer made by the operator: "Come on! I'll let you put your foot on the matchbox you want."

The hook is always stronger and produces greater "conviction" because the con man is not entered into the equation in the "argument" that the sucker is creating in his own head.

But sometimes the sucker isn't sharp enough to see the bait. He won't go for the hook on his own. Sometimes there are audiences too dim, or propositions too subtle, for the hook to work. In those situations, the come-on or challenge is better.

One can also "piggy back" agreement to one thing on the backs of another "I only pay on the red, not on the blacks"(these two are both black).

It is possible to "slur" the moment of agreement from the beginning of one condition to the arrival at another, as in "calling the card face down."

An outline of Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty
Artaud had a pessimistic view of the world, but he believed that theatre could affect change.
Remove the audience from the everyday and use symbolic objects to work with the emotions and soul of the audience.
Attack the audience's senses through an array of technical methods and acting so that the audience would be brought out of their desensitisation and have to confront themselves.
Use the grotesque, the ugly and pain in order to confront an audience, thereby being cruel to them.

On 2006-06-08 15:56, David Parr wrote:
See Robert Neale's complex definition of magic in The Magic Mirror (Hermetic Press, 2002). ...

See earlier in this discussion where we cut through the context (life/nature...) and advanced the discussion