Good rebuttal, allow me to respond.
Philosophy at it's core is not a challenge, it is a means of seeking truths and rationale, the search for wisdom. It does not require challenge. The process can evoke challenge, but it's not a
requirement
Painting, drawing, sculpting (static art) does not
require a challenge to the viewer.
Culinary arts do not
require the diner to be challenged.
Magic
REQUIRES the spectator to wonder, and therefore be challenged, or it's not magic.
Again, the question is: what separates magic from other arts?
My answer, again, is that magic requires creating a challenge. The challenge is created by the routine and the spectator is there to be challenged, to be wondrous. Entertainment value is speculative and subjective in all arts, but in magic, if it doesn't create a challenge in the viewers mind, it's not magic.
Try this: Name a single routine, trick, or gimmick that doesn't require the spectator to wonder, to be challenged by their own wonder, at the trick you've presented. You can't, because by definition, magic is
required to elicit that response. Not most of the time, not occasionally, not depending on who performs it. It always requires the spectator to question, to wonder, which in and of itself is the spec challenging him or herself to understand what just happened. It's the disbelief, the challenge to square what you just witnessed with reality, that makes magic exciting, and most importantly, successful. Challenge is a required element of the art of magic, and not a requirement for any other art. Think about what drew you to the art of magic, how you felt, how you wondered how it was done.
Eat a Big Mac. Food, no? Were you challenged (aside from choking it down
)? Did it cause wonderment? Did Ray Croc create the franchise to be challenging and cause wonderment? But it's food, right? Culinary arts? How about a pizza? Every pizza you eat causes you wonderment by design?
How about the ball player making a basket. Every single shot challenges your perception of reality, causes wonderment? Ever see a comic book? Art, you'd agree? Are you challenged with every page? Genuinely wondering how the comic book happened?
Of course not, I'm being silly and extreme in example to make a point, because in all those rhetorical examples of genuine arts, none are
required to create the challenge via wonder.
So let's turn to the art of magic, from the same point, that of a spectator. Is not every single sleight, routine, etc, making you wonder? Are you not challenged by that wonderment? Yes, of course, and by design, every single magic trick is designed to elicit wonderment and challenge your senses. Every. One. Or it's not magic.
It's the
requirement of wonderment and subsequent challenge the spectator has, that separates the art of magic, no matter who's performing it, no matter where it's being performed, no matter the conditions or number of spectators, from all other arts.
The test is simple:
Name your art, any art. Dance, music, painting, sculpture, movie producer, etc. Now come up with an example of that chosen art which
doesn't require creating the challenge for a spectator. Got one example? Then it doesn't pass the test.
Now do the same for magic. Come up with an example which doesn't
require the spec to wonder and be challenged as to what happened or how it was done. It can't be done, or it's not magic in your example.
Anyhow, that's my $0.02 on the issue. The question is "What separates magic from other arts?"
My shortest answer is "Magic differs from every other art in that magic
requires creation of a challenge in the spectators mind, usually via creating a sense of wonderment. While other arts can and do create challenge and wonderment sometimes, they are not
required to do so."
I'd be curious for the gentleman who posed the question to weigh in at this point.
Thanks to him, and to all here participating in a provocative and fun discussion. I love this stuff and the lively discussion it's evoked.
I hope you all have a wonderful day and thanks again for a stimulating discussion.
- FB