|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24312 Posts |
Actually, when quoting other people, it is a sign of respect to do it as they wrote or spoke it, and to attribute it as well.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts |
How often does that happen? I'm talking about media as a whole. I am sure you realize when you see a quote in the paper, you can be sure it isn't whole, or even accurate. No one expects it anymore, as long as the misquote suits them.
My point is that to quote someone and assume that it is the final word is ridiculous. Sure there are quotes that may be well thought out, by intelligent people. But to say that "since Benjamin Franklin (Example) said it is must be unquestionable" irks me. Every quote is rarely more than an opinion of some guy, nothing more. Were I to quote you, I would do well to do so accurately and to give the source. Were I to have a line of thought and quote you to prove myself right, seems foolish. Just me.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
Yellowjacket Regular user Wisconsin 159 Posts |
To answer the original post:
What James Biss was asking was if you take away the secret (trick or puzzle) would your bit, act, or show be as entertaining? He was putting forth the concept, how entertaining are you without simply hiding behind the trick. He was not advocating exposing magic. It is simply going back to the performance versus the trick philosophy. Yes magic like a good mystery book must have a secret (how the trick worked as opposed to who did it) to keep the audience enticed. The question is would the book still be interesting if you already knew the ending? Would the performance by as interesting if you knew how the magic worked? Mr. Towsend believes we would only grade it like a competition. I believe the answer is slightly different. Why do we enjoy watching a movie the 2nd or 3rd time? Because the story, script, actors, and special effects were so good. The same can be said of a magic trick or mystery book, sure it is best the first time though, but if it was really well done, you should enjoy it the second or third time on the merits of its well executed performance, and not simply because you fooled me. YellowJacket |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-06-19 11:14, Yellowjacket wrote: Notice how we shifted frames of reference there? Also note the unspecified object of "entertaining". The first statement has to do with lay audiences in a hypothetical situation. The second (mine) is about how WE and ultimately lay audiences would come to see our craft as all about execution as opposed to the inbuilt drama of a mystery revealed. Okay let's make a closer parallel. If you had your favorite film inside a powerpoint presentation, every shot and sound effect on a separate track available to you for inspection and review... would the "film" still have meaning to you as a story or experience? Or would it be an exercise in narrative structure, character, editing, sound, photography and writing? My feeling is that a work in our particular craft loses its vital character when the "secrets" are known.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-06-19 11:14, Yellowjacket wrote: Steve Martin has a line in the movie (paraphrasing), "The purpose of telling a story is to have a point!" If you book yourself as a magician, you'd better deliver the goods. Kregg
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Yellowjacket Regular user Wisconsin 159 Posts |
Kregg,
You are missing my point. It is not that I think magic should not have a secret it, it is that your show is interesting beyond the fact that there is a secret. Are you just executing a run of secrets or are you performing a dramatic presentation of magic? Mr. Townsend, Your writing is a little cryptic to me. I can deduce only two possibilities from your response. 1) We agree that the performance of magic is at least as important as the secret Or 2) You do not understand my post, yes if the secret is know, then our craft does much of its punch. However, the original question by James Biss was a philosophical and hypothetical exercise. It was meant to make you think about your own show ask if you are actively working to make it a piece of theater or merely a trick that you are demonstrating to the audience. YellowJacket |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
YJ,
Without the performance there is no or little entertainment. Without the secret kept intact, there is no magic, merely execution ( think dance, costume...) For it to be magic, we need the secret intact. Given that, agreed performance HUGELY impacts entertainment.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-06-19 13:59, Yellowjacket wrote: That was my point.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Magical and Entertaining are dimensions of a performance.
As are believeability of the character, relatability and sympathy for the situations presented... The usual or perhaps old fashioned way of looking at this topic is to get answers to the following; What is YOUR purpose in performing Who is your character How do you let the audience know about your character What does your character want What does your character do to invite or involve the audience? ... you know... old school
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
I don't like James Biss' question very much. If you took away the secret, what would be left?
I am not being merely argumentative. I don't believe that the kind of magic that I do can be done without a secret, and I certainly don't expect the entertainment to be satisfying without it. Biss's question doesn't really make sense to me. It seems to treat magic as if it were merely one element of the entertainment, rather than the main and central point of the exercise. If you took the play "Hamlet" away from the actors would what remains be entertaining? Does it even make sense to discuss it? Good acting, good sets, costumes, scenery and lighting are all important to a production of Hamlet, and all add to the productions overall success; but without the play, they are meaningless. Magic is created from the secret, from the needs of the secret and the needs of the argument. Certainly, a great magician will spend a lot of time and work on creating the presentation of the effect. But that doesn't necessarily imply that there would be anything worth watching without the magic. If there is, then there is probably more stuff slathered all over the magic than there should be, artistically. The presentation should be drawn economically from the needs of the effect. |
|||||||||
RandyStewart Inner circle Texas (USA) 1989 Posts |
If you are looking to create something entertaining without such a secret, magic is not the only place to look. In fact, magic is the last place to look.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Entertaining maybe, but will it stay cruncy even in milk?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Yellowjacket Regular user Wisconsin 159 Posts |
Whit,
I am sorry that I must disagree with you. If you took away the secret what would be left, the character, the script, the emotions all of the things that lead us up to that moment of astonishment. Those are the moments when we decide if we like the performance. I have seen an average trick elevated to a supreme status by controlling all the factors that create the performance of the magic. And, I have seen a great trick relegated to below average by a terrible theatrical frame. (or most likely, none at all) Again, I emphasize, I am not allocating taking away the secret of the method, I am pointing out that a trick must be more than the puzzle that it is. One way to look at that in our own performance is the (theory of) if there was so secret would the audience enjoy our presentation. A good example of that are the linking rings. Most of us cannot sit through another performance of those circular hoops, we know how they work and we know the all the moves. But, once in a great while, someone shows up with a beautiful routine that makes us see the beauty in them once again. I know the secret but this magician found the ingredient the transcended mere trickery. Here was something I read a while back that I thought was very good: “Many performers have no idea why they have stepped out onto the stage. The audience then assumes that they are there to try and win their approval by impressing them. Almost any other goal the performer chooses is better than that. But you have to know what you are shooting for to begin with. You must know what you want from the audience, and you need to know what you want to give to them. If the performer decides he wants to scare the heck out of a crowd, and manages to do that, then they will think, “Wow, that was scary.” They will applaud because they feel the performer gave them something – a good scare.” I am trying to remember who wrote it?? Yellowjacket |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
I think you missed Whit Haydn's point, yellowjacket. He wrote:
Quote:
I am not being merely argumentative. I don't believe that the kind of magic that I do can be done without a secret, and I certainly don't expect the entertainment to be satisfying without it. Whit Haydn is a great magician. I expect you already know that, but just to bring home the point, he is the only magician ever to win an award for every single category of magic from the Academy of Magical Arts! (I've wanted to congratulate you for some time, Whit, so, even though it's old news now; congratulations!) I've seen a few of Whit Haydn's routines on video. He is charismatic, funny, and his magic is technically flawless. His timing is terrific. He delivers lines he must have used thousands of times, but they sound fresh. But, the routines I saw are built around the magic, and if the secrets were known then the routines would have to be scrapped. The magic is the justification for just about everything he says and does. An effect that could be magical if was performed without the secret being known becomes "theater" if the secret is known. Magic must be performed as a documentary, even if it is mixed in with theater. The audience has to be able to willingly suspend their disbelief. Then, and only then, can they be astonished. In the case of theater, i.e the secret being known, there is only disbelief and no astonishment. * Whit, you can pay me later...
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
JamesBiss Veteran user Toronto, Canada 310 Posts |
Hi Folks,
I've really enjoyed reading these posts in response to a fragment from one of the essays in my first book, MESSING WITH MINDS. I'm delighted that it has stimulated such a robust discussion! I wasn't going to jump in for a time (I'm still licking my wounds from past hostility in here ;>) but I thought I should add this wee bit, picking up on the last couple of posts. Whit Haydn's own linking ring routine is an excellent example of I think what I was challenging my readers to contemplate. There are very, very few ring routines that are engaging to me ... and I suspect many others - including AUDIENCES! The effect is predictable, the plot is generally tedious and the method is intuitively known to pretty much everybody. BUT ...and it's a big but, in the right hands it becomes a beautiful thing because none of these things matter. I think Yellowjacket "get's" this. Watching Whit Haydn's routine trascends these limitations because of the humour and empowerment that he has introduced. It really is among my favourites. (I first saw it at a tiny magic gathering in Niagara Falls, many years ago) The secret may be as irrelevant as the notes Norah Jones plays on her piano when she has performed. Not a single magician nor the legions of magic fans out there who know "the secret" could care less about the secret "notes" that Whit plays. They are merely the means to the end. Whit's end is wonderful indeed. I would agree with Yellowjacket that these ends are ultimately what matters. The secret is a delightful riddle along the way... it is not the art of magic. Would YOUR performance be as engaging ... indeed magical...if almost everyone in your audience more or less knew your methods? I still think the question is a good one Whit. ;>) Cheers, James
James Biss
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-06-20 09:36, JamesBiss wrote:...Would YOUR performance be as engaging ... indeed magical...if almost everyone in your audience more or less knew your methods?... While I struggle to find and also be able to offer the engaging presentation, I feel the focus and certainly the basic "magical" aspect of the perception would be different for the audience members who are going to be missing a full dimension of the offering. I feel it's like asking if a photograph is as pretty if you remove all the red. Or a painting as pleasant if you remove the green.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
Remember the Biosphere scientist's, standing around scratching their overly thick craniums?
Why are the tree's dying, we gave them everything they required... we even added ants!? They forgot wind.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
I appreciate all the kind comments about my ring routine. I do understand the point you were making James, and I agree to an extent, but I don't like the way it is stated very much. Magic routines were not intended to exist without the "secret" and judging a presentation by what is left when the magic is taken out is not a good idea.
My ring routine is meant to be entertaining even to those who know the secret of the rings. There are some moves in it that are only meant to fool those who do know the method, and little bits of business that are intended to confuse those who "owned" the rings when they were kids. But if everyone in the audience knew the secret, performing the effect would be pointless, and I wouldn't do it. The comedy in my ring routine is multi-layered, and meant to make a standard, well-known effect seem fresh. The routine plays off of many "familiar" situations and "traditional" roles in magic. I try to involve both the assisting spectator and the audience itself into a role-playing game--I am like a substitute teacher with a rowdy class and a student up front who is mocking me every time I turn my back. This "play" is not "added on" to the trick, however, but is drawn from the nature of the trick itself, and constructed on the necessities of presentation of the trick itself. The presentation is drawn from the trick, and not something that could exist without it. It may be entertaining to the magician who understands the whole effect, but without the secret, without the dilemma, the whole thing becomes merely a theatrical story. Clever and entertaining, but pointless. There is no point in sugar-coating the medicine in a pill if there is no medicine in the pill. If a presentation can stand completetely on its own without the magic, it isn't good magic--it isn't "effective" medicine. |
|||||||||
Yellowjacket Regular user Wisconsin 159 Posts |
Holy Crap People,
This is just a philosophical exercise designed to look at your show from a presentational point of view. No one is suggesting that the secret is not vital, important, or should be taken out of the magic! It was merely a concept of, if we take away the secret how much entertainment shell is left. For most magicians . . . . . very little if any. Whit, In the speaker’s world many times a magical effect is added to emphasize and show a metaphor for a point (along with adding another entertainment layer). The story that set up the “trick” did not have to include it, however, the addition of the magic was surprising and fun. Since the presentation could have stood on its own without the magic, I do not believe that the magic was not good. Based on your post of how you design a magical effect I can see why you do not like the question. You take a magical effect and then design the presentation wholly around it. I do use that method but I also will design theatrical premises that will inspire a magical effect based upon the elements of the story. Perhaps that is why I can appreciate Mr. Biss’s “conceptual exercise”. Mr. Townsend, I agree with your metaphor, and to take it a step further . . . . If the magic was red and we take it out, the canvas would look incomplete for magical presentations. However, with most magicians, if you took the red out, you would be left with a blank canvas, because that is the only color they use. Kregg, Like the biosphere scientist that is scratching his overly thick cranium, I can assume that you feel I am quite dense to debate this point. And by wind you mean magic. I have to emphasize again, this was mental exercise designed to look at your overall performance. Not at all advocating letting people know the secret or taking the secret out or even denigrating the importance of a magical secret. Yellowjacket |
|||||||||
karbonkid Special user 951 Posts |
He stated or moreover, paraphrased:
"Would the show be great if the audience knew of the secrets before the effects began?" To which, everyone, I felt, answered accordingly. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Magic with No Secret... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ 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 < |