Movies entertain. But aren't some movies better than others? Aren't some movies more creative or more artful than others?


Hi,
I agree. In fact my mom and dad have a policy that they won't rent any DVD that has won an Oscar, as they are usualy to artsy for their tastes. They prefer to see Arny blast everyone away!
Phillip

I don't think I have much to add, good posts, but one rebuttal.

"I, personally, am getting tired of what I perceive to be the condescending attitude of many magicians upon those who do not create "original effects."

MisterE21, anything that is not original is a copy. As Maskeylene and Devant state, copyists have their place, but there can be little debate as to that being what they are. Think of DaVinci or Michelangelo, many copyists can reproduce the masters paintings with near exactness, but it is original paintings that matter, that move, and that have value?

:stout:

I simply cannot believe there should be any shame attached for the musicians of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra because they play other people's music. This example may be extended to many art forms. To be an excellent performing artist is in itself a worthy goal. If you write your own music, bully for you, there is lot of money to be made apart from the recognition of your contributions (in relatively rare cases) to the body of material worth performing.

Some things. As a classical pianist, I can tell you that playing someone else's music does not mean you cannot have an original performance. Originality of presentation counts as well. The San Francisco Symphony Orchestra presents their own music, written by someone else. The old masters set down quite clearly that normal art was the truly important category for magic, and that it was possible to achieve by using someone else's effect, and a unique presentation, or using another presentation, and a unique effect. It is naive to assume that we can invent everything in a common pool of magic. I do four coins across with a shell, for instance, ending with a coin in the spectator's hand. The premise is hardly original, but the handling, and presentation are my own. That's what I'm talking about when we speak of originality. It is of course possible, to invent completely new premises, handlings, and presentations, but this is quite literally high art. (Whether it's good art or not, well that's another discussion). For the moment we concern ourselves with normal art.

It may seem hard to believe, but apparently there are a great deal of magicians who copy everything; moves, performance, and presentation from other magicians, and they are copyists, and nothing else.

Note however, that no one said anything about money. Once again, my own definitions are sketchy, so I'll simply quote the only book we have on the subject, and say that, "To the true artist, financial considerations are secondary." It may be that John Copyist makes a great deal more money than John Artist, but that is highly beside the point.

:stout:

By the way Michael, do you have any affiliation with the San Francisco Orchestra? My Aunt Muffalda played 3rd or 4th chair violin for about 50 years.

I am dating a violinist who has toured with them in the past. That is excellent having an aunt like that. Cheers.

There appears to be a semantic problem creeping into our discourse.

The terms craftsman, artisan and artist are not quite synonymous. Perhaps an example or two might help here.

Since magic might be a loaded topic to start with let's use making buildings; We can most likely agree that architect, engineer and construction worker are all professions associated with creating buildings.

In creating artifacts to express human sentiment, we have similar delineations. Let's try something using making chairs to see some words in context; The craftsman might make you a great sturdy chair. The artisan may make you a fancy chair. And the artist might make you something that serves as a chair while also expressing some kind of idea or sentiment.

In our craft, getting through a trick is a sort of workaday endeavor. Making a trick one's own is something similar to what an artisan does. M&D called that normal art. Artistry is the exception as opposed to the rule in any field. The process where one finds something one can relate to in a trick, and then you take the whole thing and reform it to show off your personal insight is one of the hallmarks of an artist at work. These are the people who take a trick and find new and personal meaning that audiences can relate to, and in doing so change the nature/props/meaning to create something new.

Sounds good to me.

Whoa! This thread has been busy while I was gone.

As MisterE21 so eloquently pointed out, there was a perception discrepancy in this group between the actual experience levels of the individuals involved and the perceived one. Had I been with Gary Kurtz, the magician who personally taught my teacher and that some of you may know, I would have shown the respect of someone admiring the work of a master and would have considered it an honor just to be allowed to watch him perform in private.

As I said, I only met a couple of guys but I wanted to make a long story short. Many more were supposed to come but only two of them showed up. One guy involved was on my own skill level; the other had completed the four levels of the magic course we are taking. He happened to be an obnoxious geek (more on geeks later ). I think I might have been able to win the other over had it not been for the presence of the other one.

Bill was referring earlier to subgroups within clubs keeping the higher levels of secrecy. There also seems to be a subgroup forming within the class and of which I am not part of. Maybe I could if I tried but the "geek" (who still assists in our level 1 class because we can do it once we have completed a level) also seems to be its most active member. So I think I'll pass. But I'm also thinking that the ones gravitating around him, you know, birds of a feather. That is not to say that I consider the subgroups Bill was referring to composed of the same kind of individuals. I just wanted to emphasize that self-proclaimed guardians of higher secrets are not necessarily the real things.

I know what some of you must be thinking: "Poor chap, he looks honest enough but he must be so green that even the other greens don't want to let him in."

But let me give you an honest and objective appraisal of the situation here. The teacher considers me, or so he says, to be his most motivated student and believe me, when in that class, I see motivation all around. He also told me, more to the point, that I was the most knowledgeable student of the group (well, he said there were two of us but the other one seems to have dropped out). When I started the course, my performance of sleights was very average for a beginner. I knew a couple of false shuffles, how to hold a break and was struggling with the double undercut and the Charlier's Cut as far as cards were concerned.

The situation has greatly improved and I was very proud to show the teacher how I could fan a deck of cards like he showed us after Christmas. I had been practicing that basic yet very important flourish (as far as I'm concerned anyways) for two weeks, anytime I could. And I could most of the time because it was the Christmas holiday and I was at home for two weeks. Turns out, when I showed the teacher, others were watching as well and all of the sudden, I heard "Oohs" and "Aahs". The teacher took the opportunity to tell the class that if I could do it so easily it was because I had put the necessary amount of time into practicing the move. He asked me (or maybe it was a student, can't remember) how many hours I had put in. I estimated a good 20 hours but quickly added (I certainly didn't want to look conceded and honestly meant it anyways) that it was a proof that with enough practice and dedication, that move could be learned even by me, so it should be easy for anyone to learn it too. Before I knew, they were all practicing the move with their own decks. I was so happy! I was proud to have mastered my first flourish and just as happy to have inspired others and sort of given hope to everyone that only practice was required. The teacher is a professional magician. Him being able to do these things looks a lot more out of reach than anything other students can do.

Come to think of it, did that label me as the teacher's pet? Or could it have been taken as a challenge by some who needed to show me that they could be better than me with other moves and tricks? If so, I think it's so sad, And still proves the point I was making in the beginning.

BTW, last week, the other guy I thought could be brought back to the light side of the force (See, I'm no geek, I prefer "Star Wars" to "Star Trek"! LOL!) found a way to construct a very high quality clear forcing bag and asked the teacher if he thought it was a good idea for him to make one for everyone in class. It's not the kind of sharing I would have expected, but when he gives me one, I'll be very thankful.

Anyways, all that to say that I think we all agree now, we were just talking about different things.

truthteller,
As far as art is concerned, point taken. We both agree that art itself can be perceived differently, that there are several schools of thought and that we may all respect each other's adherence to any of them. I think we will thus also agree that all those theories are merely tools to attain the same goal.

In the end, what we must be striving for is that one moment when we will feel we have reached a new summit. Whether it be a newly mastered sleight, a perfect card revelation or the wittiest script we have ever written, there will be a brief moment when we feel a little bit more like a magician, a little bit more fulfilled, a little bit happier. In that short moment, whatever helped you achieve this goal becomes irrelevant. Only the moment counts. And then you slowly come back to earth and immediately start to climb another mountain. This is how I have experienced art anyways.

Can we truly be the best judges of our own work? I doubt it. First of all, it all depends on the mountains we decide to climb and yes, this is where our vision, as you spoke of, guides us. The path to high art is, however, a lot more risky than that of normal art. There is a chance that we might create something new and wonderful that will be acclaimed, but most likely, we will fail.

Aiming for high art takes guts but be careful, it is also a way for some to avoid facing the fact that they might not even be able to create normal art. That's why, for ages, art students were required to learn many art forms, by studying and yes, deliberately copying masters' works. As long as the students realize that their copying is not an end in itself but rather a learning tool (and that, in the case of magic, doesn't use what has been called a proprietary effect, script or method), copying will eventually turn, with enough talent and dedication, into normal art. This is a plateau where some will choose to remain and where some will choose to go on. But those who do go on risk, even if they don't realize it (and maybe we shouldn't either), falling off a cliff. So at that point, one must ask himself: "Am I happy with what I'm doing?" If so, I would suggest staying there. We can always reconsider and move on. Isn't, after all, happiness the ultimate goal? I don't believe that our perception of what art is should supersede our need for happiness.

And secondly, only history will tell whether we have achieved high art or not. So as a final word, let us be guided and inspired by any school of thought but let us not be binded by it.

Now as far as geeks are concerned, it may not be so off topic since, the more I think and write about it, the more I realize that it may very well be at the root of the problem I have experienced in my failed attempt to share.

English is only a second language to me so I am far from being an expert in the definition I'll give. But I've watch enough American movies and TV shows to get an idea of what is meant by "geek". What makes, for example, the difference between a role player and a geek? Attitude. Unadapted social behaviors. Self-centeredness from a lack of meaningful relationships for years. A need, fed by years of rejection, to be admired, appreciated, accepted and loved so overwhelming that it becomes the very thing that cuts them off from the rest of the world. Geeks are very sad people, in every sense of the word.

But I want to be a magician, not a therapist and that geek in my class is really getting on my nerves!

Oh well. I can always come here to share as much as the medium permits.

Richard

You write beautifully, even if English was your first language.

I find "geek" in Webster's Ninth Collegiate as "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake." Hmmm, surprised me too. So anyone who seems weird to a normal person might get the label. Einstein was definitely a geek to many "normals" out there. Lots of wiggle room in common usage. Your definition may certainly fit in many cases, but (although not a geek apologist myself) perhaps the problem with your new found anti-friend is that he is merely a dolt.

This is a faulty argument. For one, there is a difference in what the various arts aspire to and what they can achieve. So blanket statements have different value than genuine analogies. There are creative arts, and interpretive arts. And while there is no shame in the conductor's ability to interpret Stravinsky, the work of art belongs to Stravinsky. It would be an ego maniacal conductor who would exclaim, "Rite of Spring was an ok piece, but you should hear it now that I've added my work on it. Stravinsky didn't think it through. I'm calling it the RIGHT of Spring now. I'm releasing it in ebook format next month."

Further, people know that the musicians are playing other people's work. Not only are they credited in performance, but this is understood of the orchestral media. Magic is more akin to the visual arts in some respects. It is often thought that the magician is presenting his or her own work. Not only is this something I think the public by and large believes, it is true in many cases. So, can we have magicians that rightly perform others compositions for the rest of their lives? Of course. Is this different than the artist magician who is making his own material? Yes. Should the audience be made aware of the difference, I think in the long run this knowledge would be good for the advancement of magic.

As to the idea of students copying master works, I think this is fine. Because art students respect their field enough not to go out and try to sell the copy as their own to an uneducated public. Of course we need to emulate, but that does not give us permission to perform those pieces for real people. We are offering a counterfeit, and that is wrong. Again, I think a more magically educated public could help solve part of this problem. You don't see too many fake Van Gogh's in people's living rooms that were bought under the belief they were getting something one of a kind. You do see many magic shows in the same space that were advertised as being genuinely original, however.

Also, orchestras must get permission to play works that are still under copyright. Often this permission is granted when one buys or rents the parts and score, nevertheless permission must be made to record and sell that recording. Regardless it is always made clear to the audience that the art of the musician is interpretation, and the audience will not confuse the artists as being the creator. The creator receives his or her due as deserved. In magic, we do not do this. Again, to take someone else's work and perform it as your own without credit or compensation is unfair to both the artist and the art.

Rcad, as truthteller says, of course students must copy the masters, and learn their techniques. However, this is nothing more than copying. I'm not saying that copying is a bad thing, or that it must be avoided, I just don't want words to get minced. Copying is copying.

However, there is another point that you make. You state that normal art might not even be possible, thus shooting for high art seems like some sort of "out". I think this is a commonly misperceived issue. "High art" need not be grand, or sweeping, or anything of the sort. It's merely a completely original method, to translate some beauty into a language more easily understood by the race of man. It sounds high-flown, but in magic a twenty second routine, performed well, and wholly original is high art. Now it might not be good art, that depends on the performer and the people watching. But when we say high, do not think grand.

Lastly, some of us may never be artists. However, we cannot but try, and I will leave you with this quote,

"Who shootes at the mid-day sonne, though he be sure he shall never hit the marke, yet as sure he is he shall shoote higher than who aymes but at a bush."

As Maskelyene wisely states, this sort of 'shootygne' is a perfect analogy for the methods in high art.


:stout:

Clearly, copying a painting is worlds away from performing a piece of music one did not write oneself. The former is an accepted part of artistic training only. The latter is an accepted part of professional musicianship. Truthteller's point about the appropriateness of performing artist acknowledging/crediting the composer and lyricist is not in dispute. It is standard practice in classical music, frequent practice in jazz, but not so common today in popular musical forms. There are many reasons live magical performances do not lend themselves to that kind of crediting. This is no more an excuse or license for unwarranted claims of originality within the magical community, than it would be in academia.

I appreciate the many points of view on this topic, as it has been bothering me for a while and it's nice to see it getting hashed out (even if I did hijack rcad's post. Sorry about that!)

I think that Mith and I are sort of the same page, based on "The premise is hardly original, but the handling, and presentation are my own. That's what I'm talking about when we speak of originality."

I may not have been clear enough in my post, er, my novel above. Allow me to clarify my meaning:

I am not a fan of copying someone else’s effect in it's entirety: sleights, body movement, presentation, words, jokes, etc. At that point, I feel, an audience will lose some of it's entertainment, not because it's being presented a copy but because it will feel less than genuine. The difference between this and the SF Symphony performing other people’s work. They can still infuse it with their own emotion and, to a degree, interpretation. A soloist, however, is unlikely to go home and memorize another soloist’s exact performance of the same piece (how they stood up, how they held their instrument, how they looked at the audience, how they moved while playing, etc.)

My gripe rests with those who seem to look down on people who do not create their own effects. From the ground up, new plots, new handling, new everything. It is possible that I am just misreading, however.

Perhaps I am shortsighted in this respect, I'm not sure. My point of view has always revolved around entertaining my audience. I really do not believe, at this moment, most audiences care if we're performing an effect created by Dai Vernon, Max Maven our one we invented ourselves. If they watch something that is infused with true passion and
sincerity, they will be entertained.

Perhaps the conflict here is between our viewpoint and the viewpoint of our audience: I don't believe most of our audience looks at magic as an art. Therefore, what we do draws a closer analogy to stand-up comedy or, truly, even acting. For the majority of people who go to see a comic or go to see a movie/play, their interest isn't in the art form, it isn't in the work done by the performer to get where they are, it isn't in the history of the joke being told or the piece being performed. They don't wonder if the comedian wrote the piece, they don't wonder if the actor is ad-libbing, repeating lines verbatim, etc. As long as they are entertained and moved, they just don't care.

I'm not saying that, if the audience is unconcerned, that we too should be unconcerned. But I do feel that, first and foremost, we are entertainers. The mark of distinction, in my opinion, should be whether or not we entertain. Anything that adds to the entertainment is good, anything that detracts is not good.
::shrug::

E

Okay. I think we're in total agreement. One small expansion however. You correctly state that the audience probably doesn't care if what we're presenting is original (at least if they haven't seen it before.) However to paraphrase Salinger (can't quote, profanity), We can't moan about the "unskilled laughter" coming from the 5th row. It's an artist's concern to search for perfection, to shoote for the mid-day sun, no matter what the audience sees or thinks or says.

One question that might arise here, is that with so many hardships, and limits, just to try and gain the title of artist, what's so good about being an artist? I hope to address this issue later today in an essay on the workshop.


:stout:

Man, I wish I had come in on this discussion earlier. A lot has already been said, so I won't try to remake the same points again (it would be copying, anyway).

I will share some of my own experience. I am a novice with a couple of years experience under my belt. I belong to my local magic club. We have lectures, where I can learn lots of good tricks. For a while, that was the main benefit I was getting from the club. I wasn't making any kind of a social connection with these people. They were nice, but very standoffish and some were more show-offish. Fine. I'm not pestering anyone for his or her secrets. Recently, though, a small number of us have been getting together to hang out on a regular basis. We talk about presentation ideas, how to work on sleights, and we perform tricks for one another. The performing isn't really an optional component. It's a big part of demonstrating that one has paid some dues. Sometimes, the point is to show off a cool trick, other times it's to get feedback or suggestions for improvement. Most of the time, the magician will reveal the secret afterwards, but that is not a requirement (and no one seems to get bent out of shape). Working with these guys has improved my handling, given me more confidence in my original presentations, and given me lots of neat ideas to build more magic with. Would I copy someone's routine that they showed? No. In most cases, it wouldn't fit me anyhow.

I understand that there are other beginners with a sense of entitlement: I'm a magician now, so give me the secrets. But the truth is that there is so much stuff out there: secrets and techniques, and basic routines; anyone with access to a public library or the Internet can get all kinds of secrets. I also understand the point that if someone invents something, they should have the choice of getting paid for their secret or of not selling it at all so they can be the only ones to perform it.

All that said, if one is lucky, one can find fellow magicians that one can share ideas with and both can become better.

JesterJ

MisterE21,

Thanks for clarifying this point for me. I had so many things to say that I didn't have the time to expand on this. But I totally agree with you.

I will learn all of what I consider the basic sleights and will experiment with tricks that either appeal to me or that are somewhat required for a certain script. Who knows, one day, I may come up with a new trick out of necessity but I don't think that someone who sits down trying to come up with new tricks in the pursuit of originality is a more artistic magician. He is an inventor.

As I said before, there are many skills required, or at least desirable, in magic performance. To value one over the other is only a matter of personal choice. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that if, for example, someone values original presentation over original "tricks", that he is free to "steal" tricks from other magicians no more than an inventor has the right to perform someone else's scripts. I am merely saying that there should be a mutual respect between the two.

To prove my point, ask anyone in the general public to name the most famous magician of all times and you will hear Houdini most of the time. And what was Houdini's (a name "stolen" from the French magician Houdin, no less) greatest skill? Marketing.

Richard

I feel magic should be a joint effort. I work with teammates all the time on projects at work. It aids in progress and advancements. Why should magic be any different? However, as a magician I understand our need to keep our "projects" as a secret, yet my magic becomes better and better the more I am exposed to other magicians. And my magic has developed as a collection of bits gathered over the years. I think sharing knowledge amongst magicians is worth the time. Remember, "Two heads are better than one." Magicians who have worked their magic out with teams or consultants (for example Copperfield with Chris Kenner (genius by the way)) tend to be the strongest,however that’s my opinion on secrets. We are out there to fool and entertain laymen. You can only go so far fooling magicians.

Sorry, the answer is a secret!

Ok, ok, I’ll let you know, but don’t tell anyone!

There are six reasons I can think of to keep secrets from another magician.

1. The secret is owned by someone else, and cannot be given freely. This would apply to many purchased effects/gimmicks/routines.
   
   
2. The magician wants exclusivity, i.e. he or she wants to be the only one performing an effect. David Copperfield comes to mind. (I don’t think there is anything wrong with withholding a secret for performance exclusivity.)
   
   
3. The other magician(s) is undeserving, either because he or she will leak the information, either through incompetence, or by being inconsiderate (such as the man in Bill Palmer’s story above); or they have not demonstrated an interest in performing magic.
   
   
4. The person who wants to know the secret says they’re a magician, but you don’t know them and can’t corroborate they are one from the information they supply on the spot.
   
   
5. A gray area is when you learn a trick from another magician because he is generous. Can you then teach it to all your magician friends? I’ve had situations where I thought it was ok to teach the trick, because it was so similar to published material that the other magicians already knew. I’ve also had situations where I held back because I wasn’t sure I should share it. If someone posts a trick in Secret Sessions, then they will obviously share it with other magicians, but if they send it to you in a private message, then it would be polite to ask permission before sharing, especially if they perform in the same area as the magician(s) you want to teach.
   
   
6. Even though they will treasure and keep magic secrets, and they are virtuoso performers, the magician in question has exhibited despicable behavior. (Perhaps they killed your favorite pet!) I wouldn’t give them a secret!
   

If none of the above caveats apply, then I wouldn’t withhold secrets from another magician.

Just thought I'd share my own methods of dealing with situations like the ones being discussed on this forum.

I'm often approached by absolute beginners who are dying to learn how I did one thing or another. Others may agree or disagree with this approach, but my response is to teach them something in the "public domain" mentioned earlier, preferably something that requires some skill but has no secret involved at all, a thumb fan, for example. I then tell them that if they come back a week later with a good solid thumb fan, we'll talk. This immediately weeds out a lot of the curious who aren't really interested in learning the art, and the remainder have more respect for what you have to teach them, as they've discovered that learning to do the move takes practice and dedication. I only teach to people who have taken the time to practice things discussed previously.

With magicians either at or above my own level, I generally propose a trade. If I do something they like and they wish to learn, I state that I'll trade effects if they have something comparable to share. The trade must be agreed upon by both sides before any information is given out, and it's fun to run through a few effects and bargain which you'll teach in exchange for learning another. Finally, it adds perceived value to what you teach if something has to be given up in return. Perceived value is as important in magic as in any other business or art form.

People rarely place value on what they obtain for free.

What I try never to do is dismiss beginners out of hand. I first learned a really good riffle force from a layman who showed me the only trick he knew. I've learned much from people who only knew one or two tricks but were willing to trade. There are gemstones hidden among the pebbles.