Hi
If anyone of you have read the book Our Magic, do you think that that High Art is achievable in todays magic scene?

Let's start a discussion on this.

Thanks.

By Maskelyn, the main factor to define High Art, Normal Art and False Art is 'Originality'. So I think it is not difficult to find magicians in High Art level today.

For example, there are so many magicians who does Matrix in normal level, but Armando Rucero created very original Matrix and made it a real miracle. I think he is a real high artist.

In Japan, Mr. Maric appeared in TV program 'God of Entertainment' every week last year. He performed real original unbelievable magic. I believe he is now entering into High Art level.

Salvano, David Copperfield, Pendragons, Lance Burton, so on.

I am not fully satisfied by Maskelyn's definition of High Art. Originality is not only one important factor in High Art. If I copy other's work but polish it, improve it and made it far better than the original, it can be called a High Art.

For me, most important factor of High Art is whether it reach human's soul or not. Len'e Lavand is surely High Artist in my definition.

Hideo Kato

I agree.

Also, as I recall, there is a component of imitation of nature in Maskelyne's definition of art. Art that imitates nature perfectly and realistically is not high art; but art that transcends nature and presents something perfectly that does not exist in nature is high art.

Because magic does not exist in nature, magic is on good ground here. I would say that the test is whether the magic communicates something meaningful and reaches people emotionally (reaching the soul, as Hideo puts it).

Yours,

Paul

Art is a bit bigger than Our Magic suggests. Art has grown significantly since that book was published. Likewise the perspective of our audiences has changed.

Like Philosophy, Art is not such a small subject that its reflection can be studied in the mirrors of a magic shop.

1900 has come and gone. Aside from nostalgia, we can at least measure some of our goals against their standards.

Jonathan,

That's true. It is a lot of fun to read Maskelnye's insistence that there can be no such thing as "abstract art," because art must imitate nature. I found this interesting, because I immediately reacted against it, and in doing so, had to construct a reasonable argument against what I was reading other than "this book is old."

I do enjoy the way musical comedy is trashed as an art form, though.

Yours,

Paul

The only consistency in life is change, which curiously is where magic bases its wonderment. I believe that art, in most any form, is the ability to freeze significant points or areas within that change so that they may be recognized, experienced, and reacted to. This includes anything in or out of nature... what is and what has never been.

Maskelyne's definition of the various forms of art seems to me to be fairly on target. Any subsequent displays of art beyond the original are redundancies. Improvements to the original art do not classify themselves as art, but rather craft.

I find the comment about magic not existing in nature a bit curious. Maybe it comes down to point of view, but I find nature full of magical things and situations.
If something in nature evokes the same sense of wonder we all strive to impart in our performances, how is one magic and the other not?
Even parsing "magic" down to basic trickery, many creatures, for example, are marked and colored with the sole purpose of fooling the eyes of others.
Magic definitely does exist in nature.

High Art will always be achievable, and I believe that there will always some magicians who are original, pay attention to detail, and frame their magic in a meaningful context, whether “natural” or “abstract.”

The listed metrics for High Art are insufficient. Nobody has ever defined the word “art” without writing a definition that was either too narrow or too broad. Trying to define “art” is like trying to define what intellect and emotions are; futile with our present knowledge.

We recognize great art. To know it's high art, we have to know something about history too.

And there have been many different schools of thought concerning "high art" or "fine art." Some examples:

Classical: art imitates nature, but with decorum and balance and symetry--and in such a way as to pragmatically help or build up the human spirit or to offer catharsis.

Renaissance: wild enthusiasm should be a hallmark of art. optimism and celebration of the human spirit is the proper tone of art.

Neoclassicism: sobriety and reason are paramount. rationalism, and a renewal of decorum, symetry, balance, restraint.

and so on...Romanticism and the Gothic, Realism and Naturalism, Impressionism, Modernism...

on top of all these movements, there are so many different STYLES, like subsets of the larger movements, with the furthur complication that any one artist may pick and choose elements from different movements.

So in one sense there is no easy answer to the question, "Is hight art achievable in magic today?"

In another sense, maybe we can say it's just as possible to achieve high art in magic as in any other art--writing, painting, drama, music--and even more so if magicians continue thinking about questions like this one!

alan

Laughing Otter,

Sorry if "magic does not exist in nature" sounds odd coming from a magician. That was my inner scientist's view of nature. To me, magic is a demonstration of supernatural forces or occurrences. Supernatural forces, by definition, do not exist in nature.

That is not to say that nature is not full of wonders. You should see where I live!

Yours,

Paul

It helps sometimes to remember the first and most basic component of artistic merit... sincere personal expression. Such efforts, to communicate a perspective upon a thing or idea are what resonate ( or not ) with others. When that personal, novel expression of perspective is less than the most important aspect of a work to the artist... the work becomes more craft.

When you spend some time around art in the world, whether in museums or even in our craft, for examples try Jeff Sheridan's pieces, Jeff McBride's Mask Act, Sawa's tricks, you can get a sense of how what makes a work special. It is not usually the technique or materials but the personal decisions and perspective embodied in a work.

Jonathan, you mean if I give my dove pan a glossy polish and roll the lid up and down my arm in a fancy basketball-like flourish, it might not add any soul to my act? but I've got some really cool moves and new polish!

alan

Michael Moschen has done quite a bit with juggling, and his performance pieces are works of art.

I've always seen art defined as: the comunication of an artist's emotions, thoughts or ideas through their medium, which echoes Jonathan's post.

Maybe this is why some people debate whether a certain piece of art IS art... it isn't communicating effectively to everyone, only to some, hence the debate...

Therefore, I wonder if "high art" is really art that suceeds in communicating the more subtle thoughts, emotions and ideas to the widest audience effectively?
(the mona lisa)

Expressing more obvious emotions, thoughts and ideas through a given medium achieves the definition of "art" but is it "high art"? (the sex pistols)

If as magicians we suceed in creating a performance that unmistakably communicates emotions, thoughts and ideas to our audience that are more subtle and varied, surely such finesse is high art?

What remains a question is the sincerity of what is communicated and expressed which Jonathan also alludes to in his post above... what a can of worms!!!!

Jonathan used a keyword, I feel: sincere.

In my experience, it is possible to bring much of one's creative apparatus to a project/idea and then switch the machinery on and let it go about its business, with little personal concern or interest in what it produces. (I've done it here at the Café from time to time, I'm sorry to say.) The results are invariably unsatisfying artistically (though there may be a pay-off financially, socially or in other areas).

Yet it is also possible, I have found, to come into a project as a hired-hand, and, for want of a better phrase, 'fall in love' with it - to become fascinated by and deeply concerned with the work so that one puts oneself heart and soul into it. (This seems to me to be partly about finding an angle, a way in, if you will.)

As for whether the work is heard/seen, my view is less precious than it was . I now believe that making something commercial/accessible is a restriction only in the sense that writing to a particular metre is a restriction: such a 'limitation' can be very fruitful creatively.

Regards,

Caleb Strange.