|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
CasualSoul Special user Edmonton, Canada 542 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-09 10:29, matthew leatherbarrow wrote: Yeah, the more I think about this topic the more I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree as I really can't see that much difference between Invisible Magic and supernatural explanations. Either one is still baloney no matter how you serve it. The idea that any of us lowly performers have "inside" knowledge of newly discovered scientific principles is just as far-fetched as any supernatural explanation....unless you have the credibility of working at NASA or something. Although I'm not one to normally offer much explanation anyway, never mind a bogus one, I do have fun delivering one Invisible Magic type of explanation when I use invisible ink and an ultra violet light (I was doing this with my kid's spy kit toys long before Ellusionist came out with the Scorpion System). With the popularity of the show CSI, and the now common knowledge of how certain types of bio-matter glows under ultra violet light, I like to do a swammi variation with invisible ink on my arm while having the spec concentrate on their number, card, whatever, while grabbing onto my arm. I tell them that they subconsciously "transfer" their thoughts through their finger nails onto my arm. Freaks people right out. It's one of the few instances where I find offering an explanation up front helps with the patter, but I always make it a fun thing and reassure those that get too serious. Although it is a cool "Invisible Magic" effect, I find it gets received generally the same way any of my supernatural explanations did in the past. Some people completely buy-in, while others just don't. Regardless of if they buy-in or not, I leave them entertained and in awe. The explanation really didn't add or detract much of anything. Although I totally agree with you that magic that relies on obvious props may be losing some of its effectiveness in amazing people, this type of magic is likely still just as effective at entertaining people today as it ever was. With regards to Invisible Magic, I think this style of presentation has its place--which I think is evident in my own example above--but I just can't see how it makes any other style less relevant.
"Open their mind by performing the impossible"
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
So far, NOBODY is arguing about the presence of story elements in the effective performance of magic.
Also, we have no disagreement about avoiding cheesy incongruous and fake looking apparatus that is out of place in the stories we tell. The word most commonly used is "consistency" or perhaps "authenticity" as regards presenting our stories. As far as I can tell, where Matt and I disagree is ONLY about the novelty of the argument/thesis he is proffering. Have a look at the introduction to the 1975 edition of Hoffmann's Modern Magic (available as ebook) for what I see as a similar discussion of the need to offer magic as a modern performer as opposed to being stuck in quaint nostalgia. Nothing wrong with choosing to present oneself as a historical or fictional character, just please make it a conscious choice. :)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Jonathan,
The issue of novelty was settled a long time ago, read much earlier posts please. Furthermore, if you can direct me to a magic theory text that suggests modern magic should be the discovery of new/unusual properties in common objects (as apposed to a display of supernatural powers), I would greatly like to read it. Matt |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Examples...
Have a look at Robert-Houdin's presentation for the broom suspension using ether, he knew what you are describing back then. As did Mêlées in his silent films. Check out the J. E.Robert-Houdin book "secrets of conjuring and magic" for discussions and examples of this. Also "Our Magic" by Maskelyne and Devant offer some examples of finding acceptable cause for the magic using non-existent principles of optics and metallurgy.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Jonathan,
I have read Our Magic; nowhere does it suggest a type of performance that is not connected to the supernatural. Its very foundation is that the art in magic comes from imitating the supernatural. Can you give an actual paragraph from "secrets of conjuring and magic" that says in any words; magic should be the presentation of new properties in common objects not a display of the supernatural? Matt |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
The crux of your question belies a strange defintion of magic.
How could one tell a "strange" but natural property of something from a truly magical property of something? I will look for a few paragraphs for you. For now you have the 1975 citation from Hoffmann's book. More to follow.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Jonathan,
The answer is simple, and it is in the text: Modern magic needs to present itself as ‘the discovery and presentation of new properties within common objects’ as opposed to ‘the presentation of unsurprising properties within atypical objects’ e.g. we should be saying “look what I’ve found out” as opposed to “look what I can do”. Matt |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Why do you insist, Matt, that there is only one approach to take to magic? The idea of magical objects, or of fake scientific devices and principles is not new.
Your theatrical approach of presenting the "stranger" who discovers the hidden, very odd qualities in objects seems valid to me, and could be a fun thing if you keep it from becoming too dry and documentarian. But why do you think this would be an approach that everyone should go for? You are making the particular universal. This approach might fit your vision, and might well be a fun and interesting slant on magic. But it is not the way I would do it, and it is not the only possible solution to the problems you have raised. As Eugene Burger says "the house of magic has many rooms." |
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Whit,
Again, I state, for a discussion on newness, look at earlier posts. The fact is, be the essence of the theory new or not, MY theory text IS new. No doubt a 20 something year old, growing up in the height of this science/technology/media oriented world has a different perspective on magic. This leads onto why I am so starch about the practical application of the theory. I am of the opinion that Invisible-Magic is a more culturally appropriate way to exhibit magic. I am not asking, or expecting anyone to agree. If people read my text and agree, great! If people read it and disagree, that is their choice. As I wrote at the end of the text, ‘this theory is very new* and shall no doubt be revised with time.’ As such, if during my research I discover other elements of magic that I find culturally appropriate – I will document them. I will also add, this topic has for a while been quite successful, that alone suggest the theory is achieving one of the goals of any theory text, it’s making people think and respond. Matt *Read ‘new’ as young. |
|||||||||
RandyStewart Inner circle Texas (USA) 1989 Posts |
Interesting read fellows. If current acts which do not observe Matt's position that modern magic should present itself as ‘the discovery and presentation of new properties within common objects’, then we would have to revamp dozens and dozens of world famous acts in which the 'effect' clearly stems from the performer and not so much, if at all, the objects being handled. Matt may not be aware of some of these acts while he stews in this theory.
Actually we would have to completely dismantle and re-create many of those acts. Acts which, to date, have been award winning and held in highest regard by magicians. Or perhaps we could let them be and by attrition replaced by this form of modern magic? I would be such an act as very little in my performance adheres to the theory of 'Invisible Magic'. I wish you could see my act and perhaps suggest where this theory could be applied. If I were to do so, it be straight back to the drawing board with not a minute of finished product on paper. Interesting viewpoints. |
|||||||||
RandyStewart Inner circle Texas (USA) 1989 Posts |
Ok....apparently I said nothing worth a ****.
Oh and how rude, but now, page four. |
|||||||||
CasualSoul Special user Edmonton, Canada 542 Posts |
Randy, I'm with you on your last post! If audiences didn't find value in your performance style you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
Mat and Jonathan seem to be more interested in arguing over the uniqueness of Mat's theory, rather than addressing posts that expose valid problems with the theory itself.
"Open their mind by performing the impossible"
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
CasualSoul, IMHO Robert-Houdin addressed the thesis of the theory Matt is offering over a hundred years ago. Check out his book "Secrets of..." where he calls one effect style "natural magic".
Lack of following Robert-Houdin's example led us to some significant stagnation.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
CasualSoul Special user Edmonton, Canada 542 Posts |
Johnathan, I think I get what you're saying; a famous application of Natural Magic that Jean-Eugene Robert (a.k.a. Robert-Houdin) did involved Ether and how he "discovered" new properties in it as part of his explanation for his Floating Woman routine.
I think only Mat believes his theory is new, but I don't think that's really the issue that Whit, Randy, or myself are getting at. Mat is basically stating that Natural or "Invisible" Magic is a more credible presentation style, which he believes is starting to make other styles obsolete. I never read Robert-Houdin's book, but are you saying that he addresses the shortcomings of the Natural Magic approach in this book?
"Open their mind by performing the impossible"
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Well, let's see.
He showed off amazing automata, mechanical wonders and demonstrated fictitious properties of newly discovered substances. My feeling is he did a good job of starting us down that "techno-mage" path. Today however, we can look to Bruce Sterling and Rudy Rucker to see what the end of that line of reasoning might look like. A. C. CLarke pretty much hit the nail on the head when he suggested that sufficiently advanced technolgy and magic might be indistinguishable. Live or Memorex? Real or just the Matrix? We are very close to living in an age where nanobots and eInk might make good patter one day and be trade show trivia the next.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Hello,
‘He showed off amazing automata, mechanical wonders and demonstrated fictitious properties of newly discovered substances.’ Nowhere does my text explore any of the above ideas. My text is exclusively musing the idea of newly discovered properties in common objects. Not mechanical wonders, not automata, and not fictitious properties of newly discovered substances. As of yet, Jonathan, you are yet to present me with any evidence that “Secrets of” explores the same territory as my text. Even if you can, it is largely negligible – I have never claimed me theory is new in the capacity that ‘I am the first to think it’, only that it is new as in ‘young’. I fail to see your obsession with preaching of my texts unoriginality. After all, there are only seven (or so, no doubt you’ll endeavour to correct me) stories, is this to say writers should give up now? (Incidentally I am not suggesting my text is a story). Surly you have better things to do Jonathan – this particular dead horse is thoroughly flogged. Regarding the problems others are having with my text, it’s not my responsibility to defend the text. Until I revise the essay, it stands, if you do not agree – well nobody is forcing you to. If you feel happy with your performance style – ignore my text. All the best, Matt |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Let's spend a moment on the french drop example offered in the text. Is the idea to describe a coin through hand effect, using the French Drop to set up the mechanics for the penetration? Presuming that is what's described, and working from that, let's look at the premise as stated, that the magnet affects the coin. Just that one coin? Would this work in someone else's hand too? A good idea in presentation premise there.
"Invisible Editing" is an aesthetic in film making which if I understand the idea, is an extension of the "director's line" concerns and narrative - perspective ideals where the story is offered in a way that does not require the audience to figure out what they are looking at. The story simply seems to flow easily from the screen into the inner narrative of the viewer. Seems a good idea. More healthy than the "spoon full of sugar" approach. Here is a link: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/gramtv.html The notion that our world is made of things with unknown properties was exploited greatly in TV shows like Mission Impossible and the new mini-deus-ex-machina plot device of a watch that also has a laser, explosives and a long retractable wire has been with us since the 1960s, even parodied in an episode of the TV show Batman where a glass of hot water and what looked like a small capsule became an entire change of clothes. How about the "Transformers", robots in disguise? Is this in any way new though? Animism, where the wood nymphs are appreciated by knocking on wood as been with us for milenia. Surprising properties of base metals and such? Have a look at alchemy which sees a great correspondence between physical, intellectual and spiritual properties of things where ones actions cause transformations on all three levels of existence. One acts on one level of reality and finds results on three levels of reality, a much bigger idea IMHO. A "young" theory? First, is it a theory? Theories are hypotheses that have survived the most clever and careful application and scrutiny of the best in the field. Hypotheses are stated in terms one can test by experiment. A hypothesis perhaps? Okay, what's the testable hypothesis? That a magic trick offered in the guise of an unsuspected property will be more easily enjoyed than one in the guise of using eldrich powers or special forces from uncommon object? We can work from that. Do we have a testable hypothesis? Do we have some context from which to distinguish the thesis from what has come before?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
PossumSlimm New user MN 79 Posts |
I think Jonathan just broke your wookie, Matt.
|
|||||||||
matthew leatherbarrow Loyal user 240 Posts |
Jonathan,
Considering the French drop example (and bearing in mind it only exists as an example), I imagine it could be any coin, however it would not work in anyone else’s hand. Why (?), because you (as the discoverer of the strange property) know the exact procedure to display it. Similarly, I should technically be able to perform brain surgery – just watch someone perform it – then do the exact same thing. I think we are all in agreement that for anyone who has not learned the correct way to perform such surgery would doubtlessly lead to disaster. “A central and highly influential tradition of the film making has been based on the premise that shooting and editing should produce a result that mimics the experience of an ideally placed observer, and thereby have the audience “see as the attentive observer saw”. The device to which this tradition has given rise, such as eyeline matching and shot-reverse-shot editing, certainly seem very natural. They constitute part of the repertoire of what is called “invisible editing”, the kind we easily cease to notice.” - Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science by Gregory Currie p – 190 Now, I grow weary of this game of semantic ‘pong’. You insist the nature of my text (be it a theory, a hypothesis or simply an essay) is unoriginal. As of yet, all you have produced is largely irrelevant texts and cultural references. If you are trying to suggest the ideas in my text are universally unoriginal – why? Most ideas have been implement, even unconsciously. If you are trying to suggest the ideas have been written about before now – then I ask, show me any referenced text that muses the idea ‘magic should be the discovery and presentation of NEW properties IN COMMON objects’. Matt |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
Hi, Matt,
Your book is an interesting read, and you obviously put a lot of effort into it. I just have two comments. First, as has been pointed out above, the concept of objects having special properties has been used before, especially in the latter part of the 19th century. Going back to this approach nowadays may work for some specific markets, but we need to understand why this approach was popular back then in the first place. The 19th century was a period of huge advances in science and technology, with things like the steam engine, railroad, assembly line, telephone, telegraph, photography and many other "wonders" becoming reality. Upscale, "sophisticated" audiences (the ones that Robert-Houdin and many others played to because that's where the money was) liked to dabble in all this new knowledge and be part of the "inside circle." In the UK, in fact, unwrapping mummies became a popular pastime for the very rich who had the resources. So, for someone like Robert-Houdin to come along and show how ether (this new wonder substance) can have this marvelous effect on a young boy was a great audience pleaser. It was almost a scientific demonstration. The times were right, the audiences were right, and the mentality was right. Nowadays? Maybe in some circles. But we need to be aware of what the rest of the entertainment industry is doing, and why they're doing it. The subject of attention span was covered in another thread here. My second comment is more personal. To me, anything that has a scientific explanation is not magic. The food replicator in Star Trek ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot.") is no more magic than a Prius that unlocks its door when the driver approaches, or my cofeemaker, which turns itself on at a given time in the morning. The magic in Harry Potter does not have a scientific explanation: you cast a spell and the door opens. Sure, we could argue that a spell is like a computer program with a whole series of "if-then" statements... Spell.AlohaMora() if (door.closed) open() if (door.closed.locked) unlock.open() if (door.closed.locked.barred)... ... but this would only make sense to a relatively small number of people, and it would take the stories in a whole different direction.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Invisible Magic (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |