|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21665 Posts 
|
I get your premise and largely agree with it. The only real sticking point is when people claim to be a thing, people will assume they are that thing and can hold them to standards of being that thing. If you come to my house and claim you are a plumber, I hold you to that standard. You are that thing. At that point you either become competent or incompetent at that.
This allows a baseline. When people haphazardly apply the term magician to themselves, there is no baseline is there? In an attempt to be inclusive there becomes a problem. It makes it harder on each position. If you have a set of standards and practices and behaviors magicians are judged by then it is easy. But when you have an understanding that so and so doesn’t know better because… all that is out the window. All are lumped in with the same group. It is what it is. Not saying it is good or bad necessarily just that there is no way to really have standards. It would really be a problem if a karaoke singer was lumped in with Broadway singers. It if bar singers were lumped in with Roger Daltry because each is paid to perform. In the magic world this is exactly what happens. It is also accompanied with a sense of entitlement fueled by a false sense of “brotherhood”. It would not be fair to Roger Daltry not would it be fair to the bar singer and nobody in their right mind would claim it was. The vast majority of bar singers would not be offended by it. To many magicians there is no difference in a guy who knows 4 things and collects methods and a guy doing kids parties once in a while and the guy working restaurants and the guy doing successful corporate work and the guy doing Broadway and Copperfield. They are all “brothers”. Yes there are lots of other levels I’m only making a point. The karaoke singer does not think he is Phil Collins generally. This is another point that every time someone wants to address it they get shouted down. It is what it is and until it is addressed things will never change. I cut a lot of slack to those who simply don’t know better. But how do we know who those are if everyone is equal?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3064 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2024, Dannydoyle wrote: Unfortunately, I believe the expected baseline among the general public (I refuse to call them "laypeople") for those who call themselves magicians is along this scenario: "I'm a magician." "Okay, do a trick." [does the trick] "Did I fool you?" So, yeah, what Danny was saying about Hollywood's typical rendering of a magician boils down to that. Magicians do tricks, and, if they fool you, they're good. Otherwise they're not. And too many who do tricks think that's all there is to it. We've all seen "magic shows" that come across as just a demonstration of gadgets, each one a one-trick pony. Hey, I did that myself for years when I was starting out; I didn't know any different, and it never occurred to me to view my performances the way my audiences saw them. So I was a magician helping to promote that expected baseline. I've written many times about the difference between art and design, and one of my posts here covered it: https://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopi......orum=173 The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that performing is more like design than like art: art does have rules, but it still comes down to doing what you want, for yourself, while design is all about solving problems. Yes, a design can be galaxy-class gorgeous, but it's initial purpose was to solve a problem. So what's the problem we're trying to solve by performing anything? The problem is how to touch an audience, how to entertain them, how to please them. The best entertainers out there, the most highly-paid ones, know this and work hard at it. Too many people who do tricks, because they think it's all about "fooling the folks," don't understand this. They seem to be doing it for themselves and not for the audience.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21665 Posts
|
I had a discussion one time with Cris Jericho, who is a professional wrestler. It is amazing how similar most forms of entertainment are.
The main takeaway from the dinner was him saying in reference to newer wrestlers and those who don’t get it was that you can get on the top rope, jump off, do a triple flip and land perfectly on your target and that is great. But unless you can make someone care about why you climbed up on that rope in the first place it is not going to sell tickets. It is little more than acrobatics. Applied to magic it is exactly as George said. My problem with magic is that there is little more than a series of disjointed tricks that are meaningless in most cases. Things disappear all the time but never a sense of loss. Things appear with no sense of surprise or gratitude. Just acrobatics in the end. Music has an inherent advantage in that it evokes an emotion almost immediately in most people. Add to this how certain songs describe our feelings at a time or have us remember certain parts of our lives and WOW emotions run rampant.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Aus Inner circle Australia 1013 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2024, Dannydoyle wrote: Is it realistic to expect a universal baseline understanding of magic among the general public when we, as magicians, can't even agree on one ourselves? Trying to define magic universally is like trying to capture the essence of a beach by holding a single grain of sand-each grain is a part of the whole, but none can encapsulate the vastness, rhythm, or shifting tides of the shoreline. Magic, in its essence, is similarly vast and multifaceted, shaped by a wide spectrum of philosophies that often conflict with one another. Take, for example, the debate over whether magic is inherently entertaining. Darwin Ortiz, in Strong Magic, critiques what he calls the "Fitzkee Fallacy," referring to Dariel Fitzkee's assertion that magic is a neutral vessel requiring external elements like comedy, music, or theatrics to make it entertaining. Ortiz argues the opposite: that magic possesses an intrinsic ability to captivate, provided it is performed with mastery and sensitivity to its inherent strengths. Both viewpoints hold merit but also reveal the dangers of extremism. Fitzkee's ethos can reduce magic to a supporting act, overshadowed by its accompanying elements when poorly balanced. Ortiz's perspective, while affirming the core of magic, risks failure if a performer lacks the skill or insight to make their magic resonate on its own. These opposing philosophies demonstrate the lack of consensus even within the magic community. If we can't agree on the fundamental nature of magic, how can we expect the public to understand it beyond surface-level impressions? The minimalist approach, exemplified by performers like David Blaine and Teller, adds another layer to this discussion. Blaine's stripped-down performances challenged traditional expectations. Rejecting Fitzkee's theatrical prescriptions and embracing Ortiz's belief in magic's inherent power, Blaine created a style that let magic speak for itself. Blaine's genius lies in his ability to create space-removing excessive patter, flashy staging, or overt personality projection to let raw astonishment take center stage. By doing so, he redefined showmanship for TV magic, making the spectator's reaction the focal point of the performance. Teller's silent performance style further reinforces this idea. By eliminating speech, he directs all attention to the magic's visual and emotional impact. This isn't a rejection of personality but a deliberate choice to let the magic itself shine. Both Blaine and Teller demonstrate that minimalism isn't about doing less for its own sake. It's about clearing away distractions to create a purer, more immersive magical experience. However, this approach demands exceptional skill and intentionality. Without these, minimalism can fall flat, leaving audiences disengaged and reinforcing the stereotype of magic as shallow or gimmicky. The diversity of philosophies in magic is both its strength and its challenge. While this variety allows for rich and varied expressions of the art, it also creates inconsistencies in how magic is perceived. This contributes to the "do a trick" mentality many associate with magic with a perception shaped by a combination of superficial public exposure, media portrayals, and underwhelming performances by those who fail to elevate the craft. Perhaps the solution is not to aim for a universal baseline definition but to embrace the diversity within magic while fostering a shared commitment to excellence. By encouraging magicians to deeply consider their philosophies, refine their approaches, and focus on the audience's experience, we can help reshape public perceptions. Magic thrives in its contradictions. Instead of seeking a single grain of sand to define it, we should celebrate the interplay of perspectives that make magic a dynamic, evolving art form. In doing so, we can shift the focus from "what is magic?" to "how can magic inspire wonder and connection?" Magically Aus |
|||||||||
|
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3064 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 26, 2024, Aus wrote: When you say "we, as magicians," are you lumping everyone who does magic tricks (from the ones who only do one or two packet tricks to those who do full illusion shows) into the same envelope? Quote:
Perhaps the solution is not to aim for a universal baseline definition but to embrace the diversity within magic while fostering a shared commitment to excellence. By encouraging magicians to deeply consider their philosophies, refine their approaches, and focus on the audience's experience, we can help reshape public perceptions. How would you suggest doing that? People who play music, sing, dance, draw, paint, sculpt, act, make movies, design sets, play chess, play sports, and so on and on are the same as people who do magic: some are hobbyists, some are half-serious, some are serious, some are very serious, and some are excellent. And yes, some are geeks. It's all in how they see it, what it means to them, and how much work they want to put into it. You're not going to turn someone who sees any of those as just a free-time amusement into someone who wants to become very good at it, especially if it takes work.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
|
Aus Inner circle Australia 1013 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 27, 2024, George Ledo wrote A magician in this context is someone who engages with magic as an expressive art form, whether professionally (in the context we have already discussed) or passionately, and actively seeks to explore its deeper meanings, purposes, and impact on audiences. This transcends simply "doing tricks" and enters the realm of crafting experiences that evoke wonder, curiosity, or other profound emotional or intellectual responses. People I would include in this Definition would be: Artistic Practitioners: Magicians who approach magic as an art form and reflect on its ability to create meaningful experiences, whether they perform close-up, parlor, stage, or street magic. Magicians who are educators and writers: Those who contribute to the field by analyzing, teaching, or philosophizing about magic's role, history, and future. This includes people like Darwin Ortiz, Teller, and even individuals who participate in forums like The Magic Café to critically engage with ideas. Magicians who are Innovators and Experimenters: Performers who push the boundaries of magic, exploring new methods, presentations, and integrations with other disciplines. Serious Amateurs: Hobbyists with a deep respect for magic who actively work to improve their craft and engage with the broader magical community. Quote:
How would you suggest doing that? People who play music, sing, dance, draw, paint, sculpt, act, make movies, design sets, play chess, play sports, and so on and on are the same as people who do magic: some are hobbyists, some are half-serious, some are serious, some are very serious, and some are excellent. And yes, some are geeks. It's all in how they see it, what it means to them, and how much work they want to put into it. You're not going to turn someone who sees any of those as just a free-time amusement into someone who wants to become very good at it, especially if it takes work. I'm not trying to change the minds of those who approach magic in a half-hearted or frivolous way, nor am I trying to reach those who have no desire to change. Such individuals will always exist in magic, just as they do in any other field, regardless of our efforts to elevate the art. Discussions about the public's perception of magic and the philosophies that shape our art should focus on individuals who see magic as more than just entertainment or a pastime. These are the people who have the most influence on how magic evolves and how it's received by audiences. That's not to dismiss the value of casual performers, but their engagement with magic doesn't typically involve the level of introspection or artistic ambition needed to influence broader conversations about the art form's direction. Even among those with the introspection necessary to engage in meaningful discussions about the art of magic, fundamental philosophical differences persist. For instance, accomplished magicians like Dariel Fitzkee and Darwin Ortiz-both with strong, opposing views on what makes magic entertaining-exemplify the diversity of thought within our craft. If we are to create a baseline, we must first establish common ground-a shared framework or language-so that our discussions can build toward a unified understanding. To progress as an art form, we must either reconcile these differences or accept them as legitimate variations within the discipline. While agreement may not always be possible, respecting the diverse ways in which magicians approach their craft is essential for fostering dialogue and growth. This diversity, however, brings up a critical question: how can we establish a universal baseline for what it means to be a magician when even the intellectuals within our field cannot align on foundational principles, such as what truly makes magic engaging? Without a shared understanding, defining a cohesive standard becomes an ongoing challenge. At a minimum, we should agree that entertaining and connecting with audiences is a baseline responsibility for any magician, regardless of their chosen philosophy or approach. Interestingly, even classic texts on magic are not immune to critique within the community. For example, Pop Haydn has openly disagreed with some of the propositions in foundational works such as Showmanship for Magicians by Henning Nelms or Dariel Fitzkee's writings. This underscores the reality that magic, as an art form, thrives on debate and differing perspectives. These differences can enrich our craft, but they also highlight the difficulty of uniting behind a single, universal definition of what it means to be a magician. Magically Aus |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27373 Posts
|
As a performing art; the work is in how the performer engages with the audience.
And that's almost entirely separate from making /acquiring props, and behind-the-scenes skills including sleight of hand. Some detailed history about "The Coming Race" and "Merlin" might help when it comes to theater/magic.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21665 Posts
|
The methods of trying to create a good impression of the public have failed miserably. They may have to change some.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Nat Special user 568 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 20, 2024, George Ledo wrote: I have learned over the years: critism is not about what is wrong, it's about what is missing! |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21665 Posts
|
Ohhh such a good point. Often it is about what is missing.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
funsway Eternal Order old things in new ways - new things in old ways 10032 Posts
|
On 'creative criticism" -
In the 909's, I was commissioned by two different "professional wanna-be's" to be a critic of their show. They were relying on my communication, organizational and scripting skills beyond diverse performance magic experience. One unique approach I employed was observing the audience reactions to a show before I had seen the show myself. I made careful timed notes of attention, excitement and distractions of the audiences to include non-verbal communications between observers. Later, when I watched a show, I timed stage events and "moment of magic," movement of props, use of volunteers, etc. A comparison between the two records was very revealing. What the performer believed was happening in "audience engagement" was different from what the audience perceive was happening - especially on the "awe & wonder" impact vs. "entertainment." Both were open to making change in routine flow, scripting, timing and physical actions in their shows with dramatic results. Most of the change ideas came from them with me as a guide. My criticism was a catalyst more than directive. However, in both cases I recommended the elimination of one effect, which the accepted.
"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 |
|||||||||
Mary Mowder Inner circle Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA 3740 Posts
|
Did you eliminate the tricks because they did not fit or because they were poor or they did not do it well or...?
Just curious. - Mary |
|||||||||
|
funsway Eternal Order old things in new ways - new things in old ways 10032 Posts
|
Quote:
On Nov 30, 2024, Mary Mowder wrote: not fit - each was a favorite of the magician included for personal reasons unrelated to the theme of the routine. One then restructured the effect to be like an encore or stand-alone for a smaller setting. The other acknowledged the ego connection and gifted it to me - removing the temptation.
"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 |
|||||||||
The Great Dave Loyal user My Wife said "It's Me or that Stupid Magic Website!" this many times: 225 Posts
|
Magicians I find annoying:
David Regal I cannot listen to his voice. Or watch his moves. Or both combined. His persona is cringe worthy. I'm on instinct here. Any Magician who snaps his fingers. It's always annoying, it will always be annoying. Any Magician who says "Isn't that Weird?" after an effect. John Kennedy does this. Annoying. Not Magic. Doug Henning when he used to say "THANK Yew." Spare me. And, in case I forgot to mention it, any Magician who snaps his fingers. Ever. Forever. Really.
Academy of Magical Arts
Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Whoops, wrong hat ... |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » In an Efffort to Better Ourselves, which Magicians Do You Find Annoying? (28 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
Posted: Nov 25, 2024 04:35 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < 
|