|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Well said, Paul. In fact, entertainers who have many years' experience find less and less need for "props". They have that name for a reason - they quite literally prop up your show.
That's why the choice of props is vital to the performer. Some are better with everday items that can be found among any crowd of people. Others have elaborate and fancy contraptions which only they understand, but which can entrance an audience. It's rather pointless to try to imagine magic without props. Magicians aim to demonstrate things "contrary to nature", so we need objects to make those things happen. A comedian, singer, dancer, impersonator, or mime artist, on the other hand, needs no "props" at all....merely themselves and their skills/talents. These are the "high" performing arts, although I think mime is rather out of fashion just now. But, no doubt, to get hung up over props, or thinking about the stuff in David's article, is not going to help you to create a "better" magic show. To create a good magic show, you need to consider yourself as an entertainer first, and a magician second. That is where TT and David fail so badly. They are magicians, they have no clue about what entertainment really is. :) |
|||||||||
Paul S Wingham Inner circle 1378 Posts |
I wouldn't want to comment on anyones failings but I think I said earlier that in the right hands any of the props in the article can be made to work. But equally, I think a lot of people use those props and don't make them work and perform them because they think they should work because they are classics.....perhaps they don't recognise they are not the exception. I think I have seen more bad acts with canes and rings than I have good ones.
I can certainly identify certain props that I don't think I could get away with....my shortcomings as a performer or am I astute enough to understand what works for me? I don't really know but I work on the basis that if I don't feel comfortable performing it, then my audience probably won't feel comfortable watching it. That includes a bunch of things of things on the list but I'm sure things in my act wouldn't work for others. |
|||||||||
davidrowyn New user 34 Posts |
From the original essay:
"I am simply suggesting there may be better magic to be considered in place of the material mentioned, and I would be thrilled to see modern performance and those seeking to present modern (or even post-modern) magic evolve." In other words, the essay is intended to serve as food for thought for those who wish to be modern performers---not modern in that they are performing in 2011, but modern as contrasted with, say, standard or classical. This is important. A lot of the commentary here assumes I wrote this essay for all types of stage magicians, when the essay clearly states otherwise. If you wanted to build a house that showcased minimalist design, would you model it after Gothic architecture? No. (For the record, I love both minimalism and Gothic architecture.) Would one advise a performer wishing to be seen as aesthetically modern to perform routines that are more congruent with classics, standards, bygone eras, &c.? Items like the guillotine, cigarettes, zombie, canes, top hats, linking rings, and vinyl records? (Seven items referenced in the essay.) No. But for other types of magicians who embrace the standard, a classic magic act, or a character from a bygone era, these props may be a perfect fit. Continuing, if one desired to have an act that was not only modern, but progressive, unique, and highly aesthetic, then perhaps they would be best advised to avoid effects that might make them look less than aesthetic, unique, or modern. Items like the underwear tricks, the Anderson newspaper tear, balloon to dove, and lots of silk magic. (The remaining 4 items referenced in the essay.) But, if one wished to perform standards in the time-tested way, I agree that there is an audience for this, and one can make a comfortable living performing this way. For these performers, newspaper tears, silk handkerchiefs and standard dove routines could help them achieve this style. * * * I think some people saw that many items on the list were things in their act, made the assumption that the essay was speaking to all types of magicians equally, and quickly became defensive from that point onward. A lot of disagreement seems to have come from adopting that false assumption. Thus, were they present, genuine arguments against the essay would look something like this: "I think the standard presentation of the Anderson newspaper tear would be a great choice for a performer wishing to stand apart from other stage magicians who do the newspaper tear." OR "I think underwear tricks are highly aesthetic." OR "Nothing says modern like a guillotine." I don't see a lot of these arguments being made. Instead, I see a lot of justifying certain props in certain situations, advocating for fresh presentations from the performer, and a focus on finding material that suits the performer's style. These aren't legitimate arguments against the essay. These are things I agree with, and often allude to in the essay itself! // |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
"I am simply suggesting there may be better magic to be considered in place of the material mentioned, and I would be thrilled to see modern performance and those seeking to present modern (or even post-modern) magic evolve."
David: I respectfully must say that in my opinion your argument is flawed. You are, perhaps, young- a quality I shall not hold against you. If so, you will learn in time that "modern" is on a ferris wheel. If not, you are disingenuous... p.s. What, exactly, is "post modern"???
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
davidrowyn New user 34 Posts |
Cyclical, yes, but nothing returns the same way twice.
// PS: Post-modern refers to reacting against what was considered modern at an earlier time, even to the point of reintroducing tradition or, conversely, exaggerating modernity. To mention post-modern alongside modern is, in fact, an acknowledgment of the cyclical, or ferris-wheel, nature of things. Once again, the essay supports the very arguments ostensibly used against it! PPS: If people are sold on disagreeing at all costs, there is nothing I can do. But, if they carefully read, and re-read when necessary to get a better understanding, I think they will find much of their disagreement give way to clarity. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 12:39, Potty the Pirate wrote: Uh, no. Sometimes you have to change the materials used, the handling of the properties, the method of the trick, the type of prop - so, no. The presentation does not solve all the problems. Unless you are taking the word "presentation" to mean everything a magician does. But that's kind of a useless and grandiose definition that ignores that we have, in our field, a term that has a more specific meaning. Quote:
How does Hollywood portray "us" exactly, TT? Do you mean professional magicians, theoretical bedroom magicians, or "artistic" magicians? I think it depends what movies you watch. Have you seen "The Prestige", or "Magicians?" If anything, Hollywood likes to portray magicians as slightly dark, mysterious, and unknowable. You might have a different impression, but perhaps we're about to learn that you're a highly knowledgeable movie buff, and of course, you KNOW what the folks in Hollywood think of magicians? As I have pointed out (repeatedly) it is always easy to find the exception. The Prestige and Illusionist were exceptions. Though, did the Prestige portray us in a positive light? When you place obsessive fixation into a Victorian scene, it can be interesting. When you place it into the modern world - I think it leads to the notion of people who cannot maintain human relationships because they are so swallowed up by their own interests to be out of touch with what most people value. Anna Radakovich wrote an excellent story about going on a date with a magician. In fact, I think the BBC documentary you appeared in Potty makes a reference to social choices. And if I recall, doesn't Magicians center around a guillotine incident. So - when someone wants to define the stereotype of the magician, apparently, the guillotine does it. And if I remember, some of the magicians came off a little - well, stereotypical in that one too. It's been a long time since I've seen it. Rivalry, obsession - yes, positive traits all around. I think of jokes and lines that you find in The Simpsons, Family Guy, the magician in Crimson Tide, Gob from Arrested Development, or that Fabulous chapter in Cintra Wilson's book. Just did a google search, here are some quotes that came up: "Donning a card-themed tie and black Converses, xxx is jovial and loose. . . While the rest of the open-mic participants struggle to tell topical jokes or craft scenarios which the crowd will hopefully identify with, xxx can rely on his tricks. . . He doesn't fit the clown-like, circus entertainer-magician mold, nor does he fall into the mystic, grand optical illusion category" We have all seen the countless cartoons, comic strips, and one panels that make fun of the magician. The reason commentators/artists use these images is because they communicate an idea instantly and effectively. viva la change bag Posted: Nov 16, 2010 10:11pm Quote: On 2010-11-16 14:11, Potty the Pirate wrote: A comedian, singer, dancer, impersonator, or mime artist, on the other hand, needs no "props" at all....merely themselves and their skills/talents. These are the "high" performing arts and by extension magic would be a . . . "low" performing art? And I think often is. So, should we be happy to be considered (even by people in our own field) to be a "less than art" or should maybe we reevaluate what we are doing and try to change that perception. Getting rid of the playing card vest might be a good first step. Quote: To create a good magic show, you need to consider yourself as an entertainer first, and a magician second. Most magicians who call themselves entertainers are neither. If you are doing magic tricks - and they suck - you are not a good entertainer. You are a lousy magician. You may be a funny joke teller, a good impersonator, but you are a lousy magician. Now, other than acts where the character is intentionally a lousy magician, when is doing bad magic ever entertaining? Quote: That is where TT and David fail so badly. They are magicians, they have no clue about what entertainment really is. I love it when you get personal, Potty. It would help if you could back up your attacks with anything of substance. But ignorance is bliss. enjoy your bliss. |
|||||||||
DanielCoyne Special user Western Massachussetts 544 Posts |
I like silks. : )
Just wanted to say that. I acknowledge that they are a little magicky, but I also think they look magical. I remember loving the look of them as an audience member, and I like them now. I do think it's a good article and I like anything that makes people think and discuss. -Daniel |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-16 22:11, truthteller wrote: Magic, since it requires the use of "props", is not as "pure" as acts which can be performed impromptu with NO props. You say "most magicians who call themselves (entertainers) are neither". And you've stated how the "vast majority of magicians" fall well below your exacting standards. Well, suffice to say that you cannot POSSIBLY have seen the vast majority of magic acts, so your comments are totally unfounded. As any intelligent observer would realise. Again, your presumptious and arrogant nature. Funny how you then accuse me of "getting personal" for attacking your merits as an entertainer, which are based on your inept comments. So, it's OK to make a massive generalisation about magicians, but not OK for me to point out that your flawed thinking must inevitably be apparent in whatever show you do put on. You haven't actually told us ONE constructive idea, suggested ONE routine that might achieve your ideals - you've just slated a bunch of stuff that YOU don't "get". And, you continue to make out that you and a few of your friends are the ONLY ones who understand the modern audience. You seem to think the way to win your argument is by backing up one load of nonsense thinking with another. I thought you liked to "get straight to the point"? How about some references, examples, etc? As has been said before, David's article is just a bunch of negative observations, without any suggestions of what David considers a "good" act would be. It's all so vague and wishy-washy, and the additional comments from TT have only served to make it very unclear exactly what the point is? Seems to me the fundamental issue is that you believe you're superior to most magicians. If that were really true, you'd have a fantastic show, and would be busy working, not coming up with oblique and obtuse fantasies about the "art of magic". And, if it were so, then you should consider yourself blessed to have such creativity and insight, and certainly not look down at other performers because they work with effects YOU don't like. If, on the other hand, you have no real idea of exactly what your "perfect show" is, and have yet to create it, you have no business being so impudent about other magicians. Frankly, you have some nerve coming on to a magic forum and making such comments. You wildly uderestimate the abilities and dedication of magicians and entertainers around the World. If you're a superior magician to the vast majority, let's see some video of your show to back it up. Obviously, an experienced and talented performer must have some video clips, so where are they? :) |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
David-
Thanks for the response and explanation... Jim ps- Curious, why were cups and balls not included in your list?
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Potty, once again you refuse to argue points and concepts.
Why must I or anyone give you the answers? Seems the problem in magic is too many people take what one person thinks works and do it for themselves. As teller said 'hate breeds more good art than love'. When we see things we hate, or find flaw in, it encourages us to explore different paths and make different choices. Besides, there is value in knowing "that plant is poison" or "the bridge is washed out". Do you demand they make your salad and drive you through the Forrest too? And no I have not seen ever magic act in the world. But if you knew something about bell curves (which you demonstrated you don't) then it is reasonable to deduce that magic acts will echo the distribution which has been proven accurate time and time again. And once again, you demand videos yet have refused every request anyone has made for you to substantiate your assertion that hundreds of magicians perform guillotine routines that possess drama and do not simply parade the audience member through a series of humiliations - to use your word. Out of hundreds you can't point me to just one? Why the hypocrisy? It is one thing to say "most magicians are terrible magicians" and another to say "THAT magician is terrible" I think you are so wrapped up in this personally, that you are no longer able to even process what is being said. Your emotions have blinded you to the message. They did a study on this phenomena recently. You should look it up. But until you actually read what is being written, and become willing to argue with facts and logic, you're just blathering. Here's a question: If David's essay is so flawed, so out of touch, so off base - why are you wasting any time with it? If it is as worthless as you claim, then it will be dismissed by smart magicians; and it certainly cannot affect what you do, or how you do it. But that's clearly not the case - is it? |
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
TT, your latest post should have been addressed to yourself.
"And no I have not seen ever magic act in the world. But if you knew something about bell curves (which you demonstrated you don't) then it is reasonable to deduce that magic acts will echo the distribution which has been proven accurate time and time again." Your understanding of statistics isn't good, is it? So, YOU have seen a bunch of magic shows, and choose to use a statistical analogy to extrapolate your personal experiences to include all the World's Magicians. The problem? Your sample is badly flawed. You have NOT seen a fair representation of magic around the World. That's just a simple fact, which you can deny all you like. It is indeed one thing to call a particular magician a poor magician - that is an opinion which you can reasonably make about an individual. On the other hand, to say "most magicians are terrible magicians" is arrogant, presumptious, and plain WRONG! You're completely unable to justify your opinions, and yet STILL seem to think your own misinformed thinking will provide any answers. If you're going about creating a show, it isn't the least bit helpful to think "mustn't do that....mustn't make THAT mistake...." when in fact, you should be looking for the things that will work for you, and for your audiences. Starting off with a negative viewpoint is the worst possible way to proceed. But, hey, you can't give any positive advice, or justify your opinions. So, why do YOU bother to keep posting? :) |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-17 10:30, Potty the Pirate wrote: So, you are telling us that you know my experiences better than I do? You know where I've been, who I know, and what I've seen? Potty, you're in the wrong line of work, my friend. You shouldn't be performing kid shows, you should be giving psychic readings! Quote:
It is indeed one thing to call a particular magician a poor magician - that is an opinion which you can reasonably make about an individual. On the other hand, to say "most magicians are terrible magicians" is arrogant, presumptious, and plain WRONG! Are you familiar with Sturgeon's Law? Are you familiar with Max Maven's magic version there of? Would you suggest Max hasn't seen a fair representation of magic throughout the world? I'll let you look both of those up. Quote:
If you're going about creating a show, it isn't the least bit helpful to think "mustn't do that....mustn't make THAT mistake...." when in fact, you should be looking for the things that will work for you, and for your audiences. Starting off with a negative viewpoint is the worst possible way to proceed. So now you're disagreeing with Teller. Yes, his method clearly does not work for him and Penn. Here's a suggestion, Potty. Before you make outrageous claims, just ask yourself "does this make sense? Does this logically follow from the conditions set forth? Is this something that logic can support or refute?" Just a thought. Quote:
But, hey, you can't give any positive advice, or justify your opinions. So, why do YOU bother to keep posting? Can't and won't are two very different things. Again, THINK about what you write before you write it. Every art I know embraces editing as a path to improvement. Knowing what to cut, what doesn't work, IS positive and constructive information. Slaughter your babies. (Will let you look that reference up too.) I think you just have a bug up your butt because David dared not be funny, and - like many magicians - you have this twisted notion that we all have to say nice things to each other or our bunnies will die. You might want to look at how that "never say an unkind word" approach impacted the growth of magic over the years. You can look at the magazines and organizations which offered reactionary measures and their impact as well. If you are going to make a claim, Potty, it helps if you have some history or logic to back things up. Just sayin' Why do I keep posting? Well, one, to correct your attempts at twisting my or David's words. To point out that you make claims that do not follow necessarily and logically from the stated conditions. To provide logical and historical information which counters the claims that you make. That's why. I'm here to help. And I think I have done a very thorough job of defending my points with logic, reason, and appeals to history. You've made a lot of claims that come out of the air. And I don't think this air is blowing out of your mouth. (see what I did, I made a fart joke) |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
Well said, Doug. Wish I could have worded it that nicely
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-17 00:54, DanielCoyne wrote: And you know what, if you willingly accept the materials (no pun intended) strengths and limitations, and construct something deceptive, engaging, and visually compelling then you will have an amazing act on your hands. Unlike David I have no problem per se with silk magic, other than the fact I have rarely seen anyone do much with it that really excites me. I pointed him to the Yumi clip. When she did the fountain, it looks like - well, it looks like a fountain. I once was asked to consult for an illusionist who included snap silks in his act. I told him to cut them. I love the trick, but they just didn't look "right" for him. He was a big guy, almost Pirate like costume (this is not a swipe at Potty. He wasn't a pirate but everyone who saw him thought he might be.) In his case, the silks stood out, and not in a good way. He loved the trick. But sometimes, we have to slaughter our babies. In his case, the overall experience of the act took precedence over one trick. ALL props, all ideas, all tricks have weaknesses and challenges. Some more so than others. If you really can solve those problems and overcome those weaknesses, then by all means go for it. But in order to do that, one must first be aware of those issues. Putting one's fingers in one's ears (as seems to be advocated here) is not the path to success. |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
Dean Dill (who looks like a biker in a tuxedo) did a great silk routine when he was on The Tonight Show. I always enjoy watching that performance.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Ha! If I want to make a claim, I should back it up with history or logic to back it up? Er....you don't seem to have any history or logic to back up your claims, none!
You believe that Penn and Teller create their shows by eliminating everything that doesn't work, spending time worrying about effects they can't use, then seeing what is left? You really don't have a clue, do you? You can twist and squirm all you like, you simply cannot justify your statements. Your idea of "logic" is sadly tainted, and your concepts about magic are far more out-of-date than any of the effects you mention. You're a lightweight thinker, trying to persuade the heavyweights. A dreamer who believes his fantasises are based in reality. With the overwhelming evidence that you have absolutely no clue about entertaining, your absolute arrogance, and your inability to present a cogent argument, there really is no hope that you are ever going to get any kind of point across. I suggest you just go ahead and create these magnificent shows you're talking about. You cannot respond to ANY criticism with a firm and considered rebuttal. Mostly, you pick up on bits and pieces, and try to salvage some dignity by avoiding the obvious errors of your thinking. 95% of everyting is c**p acoording to "Sturgeon's Law". Are you quite sure you're in the "magical" 5%? I think the readers of this thread are likely to form a different opinion. Potty |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
I suppose when name calling is all you have, that's what we should expect to get.
I'm sorry. For someone who refuses to back up anything he has claimed (still waiting on those 4 guillotine guys, Potty) I don't know if you are in a position to demand anything. I suppose I should have just copied Teller's writings on his notion that "hate breeds more good art than love." Magicians like copying. Of course, I wouldn't want to try to present anything which may have been discussed in various private conversations, because you will just accuse me of name dropping or something. But those who know Teller's work will easily recognize his quote. If you want to dig up the interviews and articles, you can. I'm not here to do your work for you. And I suppose the authors and movies and TV shows I listed amount to nothing. The fact that "Magicians" chose to use a guillotine to define the nature of their characters is irrelevant. I wouldn't expect you to have sought out information on the magic photo blog. And while there are countless cartoons lampooning magic and magicians - all using the same stereotypical imagery, it wouldn't matter if I presented one or a hundred - you would claim that there are THOUSANDS more, though you won't list even four. And I suppose actually enumerating what certain props are, were and how and when they were used matters naught. Trying to break down a routine into its essential essence - such as, I am going to put you in harm's way and with magic, hopefully, prevent you from dying - has no logical elements to it. There are no literary traditions, for example, which encourage this type of close reading. This isn't the way much of the arts have been analyzed since, say, the 1980s. And quoting people like - I don't know - you, who claim that certain ideas are universal should never be taken as evidence that they may then be over used or hackneyed. That wouldn't make any sense at all. So, Potty, in your world, what qualifies as logic. If I told you an Albatross just flew into my window, would you then be convinced? |
|||||||||
Andrew Zuber Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 3014 Posts |
I think one of the major issues with all of this is that these views are based on opinions. You can't make a factual claim about what good art is. That's like trying to state why, factually, blue is better than red. I think your issue is that you state your opinions as facts, and that's why you come across as so arrogant. You say things like "most magicians who call themselves entertainers are neither." Really? When did you become the benchmark to which "entertainment" is expected to meet before it can officially be classified as such? There is a major difference between saying "that performer is bad" and "I THINK that performer is bad."
So you don't think there are any decent guillotine presentations. I listed one that I personally witnessed and enjoyed (as did the audience,) but apparently that wasn't sufficient. I could send you the first four guillotine videos I find on Youtube, or I could spend a month researching to find four presentations to show you, and it would make zero difference because MY opinion is different than YOUR opinion and, believe it or not, that's okay. What is a "fair representation" and why does it matter? It's completely subjective anyway. You're so concerned with facts and sources and the writings of this person and the beliefs of that person when what it boils down to is personal preference. You're SO quick to judge other performers, yet you are CLEARLY concerned with the public perception of magic, which leads me to believe that you're not nearly as confident as your postings initially indicate. Who cares how the media portrays magic? The media gives airtime to Paris Hilton on a regular basis, and the public eats it up. Stop worrying about the media and focus on your own performances, which I can only assume are lacking in some way because despite your "confidence," you have no website to speak of and I've sure never heard of you. Most people haven't heard of me either, but the difference is that I have a place where people can look me up and see what I do, and I don't spend my time trashing other performers. It's not only rude and arrogant, it's disrespectful.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
|
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
"Speaking words of wisdom, let it be..."
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Potty the Pirate Inner circle 4632 Posts |
Well said, Andrew. See, the only reason I've come to the conclusion that TT has little idea about entertaining, is having read his astonishing comments on this thread. That, and the fact you pointed out, that TT has no "internet presence" that he's prepared to make us aware of.
I'm not saying that being arrogant, opinionated, putting down the work of other folks, who are anonymous and unknown, and making wild generalisations inevitably means that the person in question is a less-than-capable performer. BUT, I think it's a good benchmark of what to expect from such an individual. IF TT actually believes his own diatribe, he has yet to give ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE to support his theories. Which is ironic, as I can think of several acts which would apparently fulfil many of TT's criteria. The acts that come to mind however, did not come to be through negative thinking, but through a positive approach: "What will work for me, be innovative, entertaining, relevant and astonishing to a modern audience?" Potty |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » 11 Stage Props To Vanish In 2011 (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 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 < |