Agree?

Disagree?

Why?

New plots? Yes.
New methods? Yes.
New Performing styles? Yes.
New venues? Yes.
New ways of disseminating art and craft? Yes.

So I guess I disagree. Which is not to say that there isn't plenty of the old worth saving.

Disagree.
Nothing is a big word and hard to uphold in debate.
New is substantial as well.

'being new' is the essense of performance magic. Every combination of performer, audience, effect, setting and expectations is unique, else there is no magic.

An ealy mentor asked me, "What would you do differently if you knew that this was the first magic effect ever experienced by your spectator? What if you knew it is the last magic effect they would ever experience?"

It depends on how you look on the hole thing.
Each trick is new because even if you perform a Cups&Balls Routine you do your own performance and so on. Each is different.

But: There are no new effect. They remain the same. (appearing, disappearing, floating, mind-reading...)

This is like saying "There are no new notes on a piano" yet new songs are produced daily. Interesting how lazy we get at times.

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun

Is there anything of which one can say,
'Look This is something new'?
It was already here long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remebrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow."

King Solomon from the Book of Ecclesiastes

lol... that's good... but don't you have any "new" quotes??

Isn't it amazing that something is dismissed due to age?

“And the bird called, in response to
The unheard music hidden in the the shrubbery,
And the unseen eyebeam crossed, for the roses
Had the look of flowers that are looked at.”

--TS Elliot

Does God get tired of looking at roses? How long have they been the same?

"The creator of the universe seems overly fond of beetles, having created some 67,000 varieties." --J.B.S. Haldane.

There are thousands of roses. None are alike. All are worth looking at...

Magic, maybe not so much...

lol... one of the funniest moments of my evening!

Well, I must say that I do believe there are new effects in magic. First, let us consider that there are a variety of innovative sleight of hand artists that fool even world renowned magicians. Dai Vernon created quite a lot of materiel, as did Zarrow and Ed Marlo. It should also be considered that there are several contemporary magicians that invent new effects all the time. One prime example is Lennart Green, who invented the snap deal and applied it to an amazing amount of "tricks".

The effect is awe and astonishment - or when watered down a sense that something in ones map of "what is real" has just slipped away and one is left to experience a hole in ones map of the possible.

How the performer elicits that sense for the audience is context dependant - where character, venue, dramatic structure and the background of the audience all have relevance. What does the audience believe about the performer's character/context and what does the audience presume as mundane/normal of the world outside of the show?

I feel the word "relevant" is more useful than "novel" in this sort of discussion. What's new for one might be a tired out cliche to another.