|
|
|
|||
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts 
|
Conjurers as Scholars
Is the study and performance of magic considered a scholarly pursuit? Or is it not? Has the necessary foundation to make conjuring a scholarly pursuit been built? Or is it being built? Or is the study of magic, just a past time... in the air without means of support? If magic is a scholarly pursuit, then how is it properly taught? By lessons in sleight of hand? By laboratories in practical psychology? Through marketing and business management classes? Drama? Theater? Writing? How about the history of magic? How about history of concept development? How on earth would one learn that? Who knows it? Who documents it? Where is this information stored? Magicians comprise a secret society...a community covert. And because of that, such scholarly foundation as does exist, to properly classify it as a scholarly pursuit, may also be a secret to most. Those that work every minute of every day to make conjuring a scholarly endeavor are outnumbered by those indifferent to the effort, those who don't follow the same credo, and those who remain ignorant of the effort. Alas, there are no certified universities or colleges that offer a degree in any of the facets of conjuring, and those classes taught aren't structured to satisfy the requirements of society's scholastic certification process, much less to provide nation-wide university level accreditation. When the scholarly inventor/developer states that the actions of publishing unauthorized material were unethical because the original method had yet to be published...does he so state because of he perceives the injustice as a tort? Probably not... there isn't enough legislative protection in place in our society to protect the work and its creator, and pursuing the injustice in this manner has often proved to be an object lesson in futility. Instead, its possible that the injustice is one of a disservice done to the community by the screaming absence of any scholarly approach to the improper and untimely publication of his material. What is the material's history? How was the material's development influenced? Where is the developmental time-line? Where are the inventor's own personal comments and feelings that he had while inventing and developing the concept? And most importantly, what name did he choose for the material? Scholars of all fields including magic consider these to be deeply important questions and follow the precedent of making sure to answer these questions and address these issues in-depth in their own publications. So what in the world happened? I offer this hypothesis. There are non-scholarly publishers that are not aware of, or blatantly ignore the interests of scholarship. The premature publishers "jump the gun", and forget or ignore any kind of scholarly approach to conjuring except teaching their customers a rudimentary competence in base procedure and mechanics of material. Ethics grew legs and ran right out the door, fleeing the predatory hunger of commerce. That's what happened. And no amount of back-peddling or hurrying to publish the work playing "catch-up" will undo the actions of the non-scholars. Sadly, the damage has already been done. The bell cannot be "un-rung." As long as there are more non-scholars than scholars in this field of study, and ethics keep growing legs and learning to walk, and no scholarly respect is given to magic, its inventors and their inventions...as long as magicians refuse or cannot treat their occupation respectfully and professionally... as a scholarly endeavor as well as an art and entertainment form...as long as this is happening...magic will never be taken seriously by anyone other than magicians. It will be just considered a hobby, a past time...and the paradigms of today will perpetuate well into the 21st. century. Is a serious scholarly approach to magic worth our effort? Or is it easier to say, "All that matters is what the audience thinks." Ask yourself instead, "Do we want magic to be taken seriously?" A big thanks to Jonathan Townsend for his valuable input on this subject. Without him it would not have been possible. Thanks Jon! Patrick Differ
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
drwilson Inner circle Bar Harbor, ME 2191 Posts
|
Patrick,
Your words are echoed in the opening chapters of Maskelyne and Devant's "Our Magic." This was published in 1911. Clearly, the war on ignorance is taking longer than we thought. The other side seems to have called in reinforcements! Yours, Paul |
Mike Wild Inner circle NY, PA, TX, MA, FL, NC 1290 Posts
|
I must admit that I could not, or more aptly put, would not attempt to define the boundries and limitations of the terms "scholarship", "Scholarly pursuit", or "non-scholar", as they specifically apply to magic. It would seem to me that, as with most things, this is a highly speculative and subjective range of topics. Who is it that has the omnipresent knowledge of all that is magic and how it should be studied, interpreted, and presented? Who decides what is or is not a "scholarly" approach?
Am I scholarly if I study for 10 years before I publish? Or is 5 years enough? What if I study for 15 years, but release a book or manuscript that is unintelligible and poorly thought out? Is it still a "scholarly" publication? To address a couple specific points in the original post: Exactly who was it that invented, developed, and enacted this "credo" that is mentioned? Because I've devoted over twenty years of my life to magic, and I haven't come across a copy of the "universal credo of scholarly magical pursuits" document as of yet. Who's to say that magic isn't all about "what the audience thinks"? Afterall, it is done for their benefit and entertainment, is it not? No, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is done solely the self-gratification of the magician, who likes to fool people and feel "one-ahead" of everyone else. How many years should that particular magician study before his or her work is considered "scholarly". Where does the need of some people to break out every group into sub-categories come from? Why do some people feel the need to differentiate themselves within a group that they freely joined? "We're all magicians, but I'm a "scholarly" magician, and they are not, ergo, in this group to which we all belong, I'm superior to them...". It's a sad commentary on our species. We still have not learned the difference between fact and opinion, and we still look for as many ways to segregate ourselves as we can possibly find or create. As for me, I'll take comfort in the FACT that I'm not knowledgeable enough to have to worry about such things. I'm a magician. I have a talent that I like to share with others. Sometimes it makes me money, sometimes I do it free of charge because I like to. However, whatever I do, and for whatever reasons I do it, I will always choose not to acknowledge classifactions that others feel the need to apply to me to make themselves feel smarter. Mike |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27352 Posts
|
I'm typing away, trying to write up an idea about misdirection... wondering if this thing has seen print before, and if the idea is used elsewhere. All this instead of just announcing a thing. Such is the difference between the concerns of scholars and interests of work-a-day craftsmen. The scholar wants to make sure he fully acknowledges the giants upon whose works he builds, and that those whose support allowed the work to get done are also thanked. The printed record outlives us. The marks we leave are the way we will be known much later.
If you want to thank those whose works you use, you can start by knowing their context and the lineage of those works.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|
Mike Wild Inner circle NY, PA, TX, MA, FL, NC 1290 Posts
|
RE: "Such is the difference between the concerns of scholars and interests of work-a-day craftsmen. The scholar wants to make sure he fully acknowledges the giants upon whose works he builds, and that those whose support allowed the work to get done are also thanked."
I don't know Jon... your description seems more like that of an ethical, thoughtful, and thorough magician than simply that of scholarly magician. There are many scholarly people thoughout history who have traded morals and ethics for accolades and notoriety. Scholarly: 1. Learned. 2. of scholars 3. In keeping with a rigorous and systematic approach to acquiring knowledge or to setting out the results of formal study. ... but no mention of integrity, honesty, or ethical behavior 
Perhaps the definition needs to be amended? Best to You, Mike |
|
ivan7 Regular user 146 Posts
|
Given magic is not taught at a single major/important western university it would be safe to assume it isn't a scholarly persuit as of yet (my definition of a publicly accepted scholarly pursuit is that which is taught at a majority of universities in the west).
If it was it would be taught/studied alongside drama and other art forms. It isn't at the moment and given the current public view on magic (kids stuff/sequins and tigers) it isn't likely that it will be anytime soon. |
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24321 Posts
|
Neither is history of the occult, but there are many legitimate scholars who have done years of research on the subject. P.E.I. Bonewits is one who comes to mind very easily.
Possibly, one of the reasons that magic is not taught as a curriculum subject by any major university is the difficulty of assembling a faculty in the field. However, there are magicians who have gotten doctorates in theatre with a major emphasis in the field of magic -- Dr. Charles Pecor is one who comes to mind. There was a time that astrology was taught as a scholarly pursuit. Times change. Just because there is no current university offering such a subject does not mean that there are not individual scholars who are doing research on their own time. There are lots of us.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|
Clay Shevlin Elite user 497 Posts
|
Patrick: my comments are in response to excerpts of your provocative post provided below. Despite the sometimes curt tone of my replies, I liked your post very much, although some of it I disagree with fairly strongly. But I realize you may be trying to stir the pot to get us thinking – always a good thing! Best wishes, Clay
Quote:
Is the study and performance of magic considered a scholarly pursuit? Not always, but it can be. Any person who is learned in magic is a scholar. And there are plenty of scholars in magic. Charlie Pecor’s name was mentioned above and he is one of them. Ricky Jay is another. Eddie Dawes is another. You don’t have to be a performer to be a scholar in magic, but it helps round out your scholarship. Quote:
Has the necessary foundation to make conjuring a scholarly pursuit been built? Or is it being built? Or is the study of magic, just a past time... in the air without means of support? The necessary foundation has existed for hundreds of years, is the literature and history of magic, and is being built every day. Many scholars of magic are hobbyists (i.e., it is pastime for them) but scholarship and hobby are not mutually exclusive. Quote:
If magic is a scholarly pursuit, then how is it properly taught? By lessons in sleight of hand? By laboratories in practical psychology? Through marketing and business management classes? Drama? Theater? Writing? How about the history of magic? How about history of concept development? How on earth would one learn that? Who knows it? Who documents it? Where is this information stored? As others have pointed out, scholarship and ethics don’t always go hand in hand. Unethical scholars can certainly exist. And publishers don’t need to be scholars, and vice versa. Ethics and scholarship can (and probably should) happily intersect, but mixing the two confuses what I thought was the original direction of your good post. Quote:
As long as there are more non-scholars than scholars in this field of study, and ethics keep growing legs and learning to walk, and no scholarly respect is given to magic, its inventors and their inventions...as long as magicians refuse or cannot treat their occupation respectfully and professionally... as a scholarly endeavor as well as an art and entertainment form...as long as this is happening...magic will never be taken seriously by anyone other than magicians. It will be just considered a hobby, a past time...and the paradigms of today will perpetuate well into the 21st. century. I disagree, in part because of this ill-advised mixing of scholarship with ethics, but also with the premise that the perceived lack of ethics on the part of some people will cause magic to be just considered a hobby – that’s just not true and never has been true. Quote:
Jonathan T. wrote: “I'm typing away, trying to write up an idea about misdirection... wondering if this thing has seen print before, and if the idea is used elsewhere. All this instead of just announcing a thing. Such is the difference between the concerns of scholars and interests of work-a-day craftsmen. The scholar wants to make sure he fully acknowledges the giants upon whose works he builds, and that those whose support allowed the work to get done are also thanked. The printed record outlives us. The marks we leave are the way we will be known much later. Here here, Jonathan! And I think a couple of my thoughts echo Bill Palmer’s post. Bill, hope you meet you some day and chew the fat over a beer. |
jrbobik Regular user Philadelphia 104 Posts
|
Are we all not scholars in our own right?
Think about it for a minute. We study, read, question and then perform. Ok not all. There are a lot that buy a trick and 5 mins later are trying to do it for everyone. Look at the great writings above my post. There are thoughts, ideas and facts from different walks of life. Patrick questioned if it was a scholarly pursuit. Does the act of questioning not start the scholarship? My belief is that you cannot be scholarly if you do not question it first. John B
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted"
|
|
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts
|
Yes, I am stirring the pot a bit. Also known as fanning the flame...fueling the fire...poking the lion...and sometimes...digging a hole!
Thank you all for your contributions to this topic. Please post. Notes: Ideally, scholarship and ethics walk hand-in-hand. One guides the other and vice versa. Realistically, here's an example... My brother earned a doctorate in Physics from UCD. At the time he earned the Ph.D, he didn't have a very good J-O-B. I asked him, "Hey Al, why don't you pick up some work at the Nevada Nuclear Test Sight? Start there with a PH.D and you'll be earning major money..." Know what he said? "Patrick, I didn't learn this science to make bombs. I'd rather do something that will benifit everyone in the long run." True story. I like my brother a lot...he makes things simple for me to understand. Because it's all about choices. Allow ethics to guide your scholarly pursuits in Conjuring or don't. I make my choices. My brother makes his choices. All of us here have made ours. This topic is to primarily influence everyone's train of thought on this subject to make ethics a part of our scholarly pursuits in everything including Conjuring. The two ideas are related. Patrick Differ
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
|
enigmatic aura New user glitter of neutrons, protons, electrons 50 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2004-09-20 12:34, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I know you're very respected in the field of magic so don't take anything I say as an attack on your credentials. From what you posted, I'm assuming you looked through over about two millenia of literature on magic? Actually magic precedes human civilization, but through printed record, there are two millenia worth of "giants" in which magic has evolved from. If you take into consideration such a numerous account of "giants", then I congratulate you. If not, then who's to say that your work is an original? Who's to say that the "giant", or the originator of a piece of work, you refer to is actually the originator? Remember, many have taken credit for works they have stolen or have just ignorantly, in your words, "announced the thing". It's a sad dilemma that can't be avoided and will never be avoided in any endeavor of human accomplishments. Take for example Thomas Edison, who's considered the father of light and electricity. Many electrical engineers think he's the one who came up with both the AC and DC. But if you look deeper, it was Nikola Tesla who came up with AC, which Edison publicly denounced as worthless. Even the two discovers of DNA to this day solely take personal credit as the "one" who's discovered it. It even happened for the inventors of television and radio. If such ubiquitous objects/ideas have the wavering doubt of "who's the originator", then how could something as minute as misdirection be "without a doubt" classified of its originator? But if you are labeling the names by whom you were inspired from, then that's a different story in and of itself. I hardly see any who fail to give credit to those that they were inspired by. But to consider that a scholarly act is laughable. Just giving credit doesn't justify anything as scholarly, it just justifies respect. And since magic throughout the majority of history was condemned, the record of lineage is HIGHLY questionable. Remember, magic book burning was a commonly held practice throughout the Middle Ages. Lance
Beauty of poetic magic...
Poetry isn't written to be analyzed. It is meant to inspire without reason; to touch without understanding. - Nicholas Sparks |
|
Clay Shevlin Elite user 497 Posts
|
Lance, you raise a good point, and elaborate better than I did on why the concepts of scholarship and ethics don't always mesh well - certainly I had difficulty with some of the conclusions drawn in the original post which incorporated these two concepts. But I do think there is such a thing as ethical scholarship and I do applaud Jonathan Townsend for trying to give credit where credit is due.
There is a difference between innovation and invention, and IMHO, much of magic - like anything else in life - is an accretive, evolving process. In other words, there is probably very little true invention in magic nowadays. But as Jonathan and others have pointed out, that doesn’t prevent performers from putting their personal stamps on “old” tricks. Your point about the pitfalls and uncertainties in identifying the real “inventor” of a magic effect is a good one, I think. And I would guess that those who correctly identify the inventors do indeed need to be very knowledgeable students of magic history. Else whither the perspective to make the “identification” decision? And the other problem is the problem of an erroneous attribution or statement of historical fact “sticking” when it shouldn’t. Case in point: there is an ancient Egyptian “drawing” of a person “playing” on the ground with what appear to be cups and balls, and many “authorities” have opined that this is the earliest depiction of the cups and balls trick. But is it? Others who are familiar with Egyptian culture (as opposed to magic) have said that this person is really making bread, and I think the consensus now is that this “drawing” has nothing to do with the cups and balls. But because respected authorities said it’s the cups and balls, many still believe it. So no matter how well intended we are, we have to be careful with stating things as fact. And this cups and balls example also points out the multi-disciplinary nature of magic history, especially as it relates to science (although in the cups and balls example, it really took authorities on everyday ancient Egyptian life to sort out the “truth” regarding this “drawing.”). Until relatively recently in human history, science was an occult “art,” for most in this world at that time knew little about the “miracles” of most scientific principles. |
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27352 Posts
|
I can't say I've read of anyone digging up a scroll discussing how to entertain by presenting the fantastic at close range. I would appreciate any such citations as those who know of might offer. As mentioned earlier, the folks who do check references are okay with my efforts to date. I would of course like to work from the broadest possible foundations and am open to suggestions.
Why don't we have a citation to what we call the Hang-Ping-Chien coin trick from China? For that matter, why don't we find an equivalent to Bobo's Modern Coin Magic from there? My guess is that until a certain critical mass of communication and talent accrues in a field, it remains a handicraft and not likely to wind up in any form of print. Much like some card tricks are known by children and passed on across families through a peerage system. I suspect a study of weaving in Ancient Greece might turn up a similar story. Why don't we have a full discussion of how to render landscapes through the loom? Probably the same reason...not enough people involved to make the effort to express the subject in pure words, a worthwhile effort. There does not appear to be much detail from ancient Greece, Rome, China, Egypt etc on what we call the craft of closeup conjuring. There are isolated mentions of clever folk who present mysteries, and there are many stories which we take as cultural artifacts as opposed to accurate reports of conjuring performances. There is a sub-genre in science fiction which explores alternate histories. Perhaps an examination of mythology as accurate report of history might be interesting. So far, my guess as to the reason for this amounts to a hypothesis that what we call magic is formed at a cusp on the cost/benefit of returns cusp between technology used for deceptive means, and the benefits offered by taking a different tact offering the use of these tools for amusement. Robert-Houdin comes to mind here, though again from a recent western civilization. One project that has been quietly taking shape does involve our much longer history of magic in stories. Some themes seem to date from ancient Egypt. Other themes seem to have developed in the recent city states and stayed with us through Europe and into America. Other themes have ancient roots in India and China. A few are distinctly modern, dating to J. G. Jung and some very recent notions we've taught our zeitgeist. There has been much research on how we think and what sort of thinking we do. Just last night I read a wonderful paper on some research about magical thinking as part of our cultural upbringing. I look for findings and insights where they are recorded. Both in new research and old texts. I'd like to know if some archaeologists dig up some gaffed coins or magic props from Minos or any ancient civilization. What a find that would be! Can you imagine the impact of a mural depicting a square-circle production device? Imagine the surprise of discovering gaffed coins from ancient Greece. So far, just plots for stories as far as I know. Let me know if there are findings. I don't understand some of the remarks make by one poster above about laughable efforts. Who's laughing, and why?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|
Clay Shevlin Elite user 497 Posts
|
Jonathan: starting at the bottom of your post and working up, re your reference to “laughable,” I’ll paraphrase what Lance wrote (hope I’m paraphrasing Lance accurately): “To view the crediting of the originator of an effect as a scholarly act is laughable. It merely signifies respect.”
I wouldn’t such crediting in the same way at all. All due respect to Lance, I think the literal reading of what he wrote trivializes the elements of scholarship which may occur in the course of researching the origins of a trick. I think perhaps he was expressing the disagreement (that I share) with the notion that the act of crediting the originator of an effect is primarily an act of scholarship. It is not, in my opinion – it is, as Lance said, a sign of respect and really just a question of ethics. But make no mistake, the research that goes into determining (if possible) the originator of an effect is indeed an act of scholarship. Jonathan, when you write that there are “not enough people involved to make the effort to express the subject in pure words, a worthwhile effort.,” I think there is also another element here: it is a MASSIVE undertaking for one person to acquire such a broad, interdisciplinary knowledge to enable a thorough and historically accurate recitation of an effect’s origins. I’d say that’s the biggest obstacle, really. Of course, as you might be hinting, the more people who participate, the more knowledge will come to the fore. Also, Jonathan, you wrote “So far, my guess as to the reason for this amounts to a hypothesis that what we call magic is formed at a cusp on the cost/benefit of returns cusp between technology used for deceptive means, and the benefits offered by taking a different tact offering the use of these tools for amusement. Robert-Houdin comes to mind here, though again from a recent western civilization.” Can you translate that into English, please? Deception and amusement go hand in hand with magic, so far as I know. All due respect, I’m just not sure what you’re saying here. |
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27352 Posts
|
Jon's hypothesis about the development of conjuring: When it got more expensive to get caught doing sneaky stuff with technology, and it got more profitable to entertain people, it also became more useful to develop and teach the tricks as part of the entertainment business.
I'm lucky to be working on the Ramsay tricks, which have rather short trails to their roots, and remarkably little in the way of significant notable derivative works and still fewer 'improvements' in our literature. Tracing back the billiards is more of a challenge. Tracing back the cut and restored rope is a much greater challenge.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Conjurers as Scholars (0 Likes) | |
Posted: Sep 15, 2004 06:28 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < 
|