|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..20..23..26..29..30~31~32 [Next] | ||||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts 
|
Great material Whit, and I bow to your depth of experience. I am less confident that other magicians can intuitively put their finger on the audience pulse as you can. If the goal is to provide some working defintitions and guidelines for ANY magician to follow, then learning to cast the "wide net" may be enough. Too many table hoppers and "single shot" performers are drawn to the "hook" approach with magic suffering in the processess. I fully agree that the 'dilemma scenerio' is essential for good magic -- but that a varied performance may be required to keep the audience around long enough for the magic to happen. My question is how a buddding magician will ever learn "magic/dilemma is the message" if they only toss unbaited hooks into a murkey stream?
These exchanges can help (I hope) -- but are they being read by the fishermen?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Well I think that Magic Theory in general is of more use to the experienced than to the beginner. We can only try to design our material for general types of audiences and not individuals. I shoot for the average, intelligent person, as well as for the well-educated, sophisticated and highly intelligent person. Kids under 12, not so much.
To do the sort of individualized, meaningful, personal presentations that you prefer would not be practical on cruise ships, theaters, corporate banquets and casino type shows that make up most of my work, nor am I interested so much in creating that sort of personal, meaningful relationship with my spectators. I am a little jealous of the opportunity that you have for your presentations, and look forward someday to seeing some of them, but I think your experience and venues are much different than what full time pros have to look for in order to make a living from this work. I am sure that you have an opportunity to connect with your spectators in ways that are more difficult for someone trying to cover 150 people in 2 or 3 hours, or dealing with large audiences from stage. I am more of an entertainer than an artist. I try to put as much artistry into my commercial work as I can, but my goal is go out there, make a good impression, make people laugh, blow there minds, pass their free time happily and get the check. |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts
|
We need to speak a lot about proving (one of the necessary legs of the dilemma), but it seems to me that logic drives us to demonstrate a statement giving ground to the dilemma. Thus I find a lot of value in Henning Nelms's statement that to start a magical effect we need to start with a paradox. This paradox doesn't neeed to illustrate the dilemma we are driving spectators into but it should announce it. I'm afraid that the reason for Billy McComb to have done the statement reported by Whit, is that the notion of "act" that is so strong with Whit (and more modestly with me) wasn't as strong with him. An act is a sort of large illusion with a dramatic structure and each trick in the act concurs to the global illusion by charmingly locking the escapes at various steps of the general demonstration. This collaterally supplies entertainment which will prevent the audience from emotionally rejecting the dilemma which arrival they progressively feel. Like in every good script, the traits of the character must gain flesh along the process. This takes part in making the dilemma ultimately stronger or more acceptable.
Hence, apart from playing with the logic, we need to play on the emotions, not only too distort the logic but also to prepare the acceptance of the dilemma (one ahead again). I really feel that we will not find a way to express the nature of magic and its links to the dilemma as long as we make it bipolar with ethics being one end. Whit there is no ethical debate in your electronic device to send bills in fruits. There might be some form of humor, but ethics not really. The only ethical aspect of the dilemma is that it has to remain, as you say, a dilemma but this is somewhat tautological. Could we try and name some of other boundaries to magic than the two already largely debated?
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Might want to look at this SuperGod issue 3 for some about "what is magic".
Also - how do: 1) That which we use to prevent what we see and what we believe from imploding into what is. 2) What we use to convince others that Santa exists. 3) How we pretend that what we know and what we do are not both true at the same time. Work for you? BTW that's not the same as technology - it's language to build bridges around a cognitive blindspot while describing something on the other side of that blindspot. Not the same as Chomsky's parsable nonsense - the tastes great/no filling idea. Poof, you're confused. There are many paths to that - perhaps too many? Were all roads to Rome paved with those intentions? It's okay you can come back, this post is over now.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
I am going to have to study that post for a while, Jon.
I don't want ethics to intrude into this basic foundation. First what is "performance magic?" What are the possible goals of this artform? How is it different from other forms of theater? How is it different from Charlatanry? If we only include forms of charlatanry that are designed simply for entertainment, does that help eliminate the ethical questions? If we draw the map of the continuum, what does that help us to understand? How does it help in designing effects? What sort and strengths of claims are necessary to create the dilemma? Does Derren Brown's approach create a dilemma? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
0) Does the audience know it's a show?
1) Does the audience know your character is a character rather than extant person? 2) Does the audience know that the performer is sure their character is a sham? 3) Does the audience know that the proffered entertainment will not affect their lives outside the show? * What do we do to ensure the above? What would happen if we don't? _____ I'm fine with "Magic as the theme of a performance inside the context of a theatrical event - ie the audience knows it's a show". Inside that working space we have things to explore like parallels between humor and magic where instead of punchlines we have magical events. My intended axiomatic inclusion here is keeping one eye fixed on the proscenium arch - that social permission to proffer characters and events which are not as they seem. Stepping outside that safe space we are likely to get folks asking us to help their sick children or getting asked about "other" uses of our abilities to serve "other" interests.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-27 23:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I think that is the difference between the dilemma and charlatanry. When the audience "knows" that what they have seen isn't possible and didn't really happen, the dilemma is possible. Without that knowledge, there is no dilemma, only charlatanry. The ethical questions come up for those who fall on the Theater of Charlatanry side--how far is too far? In general, charlatanry for entertainment purposes is a mild form of charlatanry, but there can be ethical repurcussions as Jon pointed out. I would rather see how much agreement we can get on this basic foundation before we take off on tangents about ethics, procedure, methodology and so forth. Is everyone clear on the basic premises? Any questions? Any corrections or additions? Let's get on the same page before we go any further. Otherwise, everything will get torn to pieces by complications and questions that we do not have an agreed upon base sufficient to answer them. I love talking about lying and ethics and the nature of the lie. I wrote a paper in grad school on Bonhoeffer's theology regarding the nature of the lie. But I think it is important that before we start on anything like that, we first have some agreed upon foundations. Does anyone have any questions about, problems with, or arguments against the basic concept of the continuum of Theatrical Depiction of the Impossible, The Theater of the Dilemma, and the Theater of Charlatanry? Anyone have a better, more consistant name for these basic blocks? I wish I could remove the name magic from the whole procedure, because magic is only one possible theme out of many for this sort of presentation. |
|||||||||
|
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts
|
I am having a problem with "theatrical depiction of the impossible." Not because I have anything against it, just that I do not think it belongs on a continuum with the dilemma. Here is why. . .
Story telling is story making. Story is not illusion. The audience willingly enters a story, knowing it is a story, and allows the powers of the imagination to be engaged. Theatrical depiction of magic, love, war, is story telling pure and simple. If the dilemma be place on a continuum I think that begins with creating an illusion, and a) calling attention to the existence of the illusion (it may not be obvious -- illusions may pertain to the possible as well as the impossible) and b) making a claim as to its cause. I think a discussion of continuum should begin there. The dilemma represents a claim whose falseness is honestly implied, yet which is proved nonetheless. We could speak of a truth continuum, or a continuum of mockery. Perhaps, the degree of charlatanism is inversely proportional to the level of mockery inherent in the claim. I just do not see "theatrical depiction of magic" as having any relation to magic craft, whatsoever.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Maybe we can consider the "theatrical depiction" as being entirely contained within the world depicted - as existing only on the performer's side of the proscenium arch. There's no need for audience conviction as it's about the same as watching a play or movie.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts
|
I would say that the the craft of movie is a cross between story telling and picture making. We have moving pictures, even 3-d ones, pictures nonetheless. These are in no way illusions. They most certainly participate in the telling of a story.
Our craft has as its foundational defining characteristic, the making of real-time, real-space illusion. How we make a performance of that becomes the subject of all this discussion.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Michael, I'm suggesting a sort of distance between our shared everyday world and the world of stories. In "theatrical depiction" that separation is complete - where nothing about "that universe in which wizards use magic" penetrates to "that world where you and I wake up in the morning". That proscenium arch may as well be a movie screen as far as the "is that real" question goes IMHO.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-28 01:06, Michael Kamen wrote: While recognizing that you are focusing on 'story telling' as part of a performance, I disagree. Most people tell stories all the time, fabricating a past more exciting than their real one. Young poeple today have so many avitars they can't keep them straight. When a magician tells a story the audience cannot know if it is a true recounting with magic effects for illustration, or a fiction to allow the magic to happen. The story can be an illusion to support one side of the Dilemma or the other whether it is true or not -- but it is possible to trigger a "sense of magic" by story alone. You can also create the Dilemma by story alone in that the story the spectator will tell friends of what the 'heard' will be indistinguishable from what they 'saw'. That is the reals story and is always an illusion even if completely true. In support of Whit's Dilemma based Dialectic I would suggest that telling a story can be an excellent way of supporting one end of the Dialectic or the other, with your effects establishing the other. The spectaor will seek a middle ground that will leave magic as the only reasonable alternative. Of course, this requires trust, which is where ethics comes in.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
DStachowiak Inner circle Baltimore, MD 2158 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-27 23:58, Whit Haydn wrote: I've been trying to follow this discussion without participating, because a great deal of it is over my head. I am having a problem with the difference between the "Theater of Charlatanry"(Geller)and the "Theatrical Depiction of Charlatanry"(Pop Haydn). The problem I have with the Theater of Charlatanry is that even if the motive is entertainment, I'm not convinced that the result is harmless, as many in the audience will in fact misapprehend what has been presented as a legitimate scientific demonstration. There is real harm in spreading belief in pseudo-science. This does not occur in the case of Pop Haydn's demonstration of a Teleportation Device, or Miracle Oil pitch. My problem lies in where to place these on the continuum being used to anchor the discussion. I'm trying to visualize it in graphic form, but it's a bit slippery in my head, possibly due to the similarity of terms for two very different concepts. Don
Woke up.
Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across m' head. |
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts
|
Whit - I think you misread my focus or intent. I envy your ability to 'read an audience' in advance of a performance, or to assemble a variety of effects with confidence that at least some will trigger the Dilemma in most of the spectators. If I could do that I would also be making a living as a performer.
Instead I only perform magic when a level of trust is established -- and never "on demand." Thus, I can select an effect that I am confident will create the Dilemma for that individual or the group. As noted above, I might use a story to establish a backdrop for a possible magic effect -- selecting or modifying the presentaion based on the reaction to the story. Likewise, if a particular effect does not seem to trigger the Dilemma, I can tell a story that will. My trained and natural ability to establish and maintain trust makes me a poor magician in that I am not a good 'entertainer'. I am working to overcome that by studying experience such as yours. What I can offer to other readers is knowledge that ALWAYS creating a Dilemma with your effects is not wise -- choose instead a mixture (amalgam?) of effects that sustains the Dialectic and makes the Dilemma obvious when it occurs. You must sustain their 'attention' before you can inject 'retention'. I also feel that 'magic' occurs whenever you cause or allow a spectator to change his perspective about what is impossible; by demonstration, story or example. I don't expect others to use such a broad interpretation. For me, magic shatters what a person 'believes' to be true, which always has ethical considerations. As performers we must always allow the spectator an 'out' by being able to say, "He's a magician -- it's just for fun." "Charlantry" is not the antithesis here -- it is "fear."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-28 07:38, DStachowiak wrote: Which was exactly my question two pages ago, but you put it better. As I suggested, it seems the only difference is artistic intention, and I have a problem with that--at least for purposes of definition. As I also suggested, it implies an ethical distinction, but for the purposes of definition we want to keep ethics out of it. So where are we at this point? Where is Bill Hallahan when you need him?
|
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-27 23:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote: excellent points to consider, Jonathan, and all entertainers should use this as a checklist when creating a show. I only have a problem with the last one, as I believe a good magic show will always affect their lives "outside the show." The key element is "hope" and discussed by many magic authors. By demonstrating some control over the impossible we allow the spectators to consider other factors in their own lives that "seem impossible." I want my audiences to "entertain" the idea that thier lives can be better because of what they have seen. Foolish of me, I know!
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts
|
Jonathan, I do not disagree with your explanation of what is a story, and frame of references involved. My point is to question the positioning of storytelling and the dilemma on a continuum intended (if I am not mistaken) to clarify the range of applications over which magic craft is defined.
Stone, I would not treat the continuum as a definition, merely a depiction in some context. I think that context is presently confusing to many of us. I have suggested (vaguely yes) an alternative. There are others, and perhaps one is just not sufficient in any case. Understanding the dilemma is so very important, but I do not think that defines magic craft. For me, a definition has to begin with something more fundamental. What is working for me currently is, Magic craft is that of real-time, real-space illusion making using physical manipulation usually with the hands, technology, and psychology. After that, we are discussing artistic principals and considerations.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9988 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-03-28 11:16, Michael Kamen wrote: I find some real value in this definition, Michael, though I dislike the term 'craft' for several reasons, mostly that it is limiting and imples a direct causality, while perceived magic can be accidental or cumulative. Why not just "Performance magic is" ? There is pleny of room in this definitinal approach for the 'Dilemma' and the 'Dialectic' without having to specify the relative values of each. Good job!
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
|
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts
|
Funsway, I hear you are allowing for illusion that is accidental. I do agree with Whit's response to that earlier. I would say that it represents a healthy (to the craft, sorry), opportunism, enhancing reputation. Your exploitation of the situation might be framed under the psychology bag of tricks. An illusion, with no implied cause, is either unnoticed (illusion of the possible) or dismissed (illusion of the impossible).
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Moving ahead to the dilemma, I feel a need to know the bull a bit better before running at it and flipping over it. Or to be more precise, the horns.
What makes these lemmas real for the audience? The notion of using abstract constructs to define a performance for an imagined ideal audience looks like a risky conceit to me. At the risk of getting gored or annoying Whit, I'd like some more about those lemmas and strategies one might use to make sure the audience has them both firmly in mind.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » What is Magic? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..20..23..26..29..30~31~32 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Mar 28, 2010 12:30 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < 
|