What does magic offer that no other art does?
- Thread starter Josh Burch
- Start date
By the skills used. Magic uses sleight of hand, optical illusion, perception, story telling, and so on, combined. You can't even really say it's all an illusion, either, because some of it is real.
Because they're not magicians. They're using a different set of skills. But that doesn't stop people from calling the experience magical. For example, Michael Moschen, who did the crystal manipulations in The Labyrinth, was hired to do that job because the producers thought his act was "the most magical thing he'd ever seen". Michael Moschen is a juggler, though a very unusual one.
How many movie reviews include the word "magical"?
Magic, in and of itself, uses a particular set of skills. Other artists use some of those skills, and sometimes terms are applied incorrectly - but I genuinely don't think there's anything magic offers that is completely unique to that genre. I also don't think that matters - what matters is that the audience is satisfied by the performance.
I will echo most of the sentiments offered here with one major exception;
Something that is 'special' (admittedly not entirely unique) about performing magic is the deep, close, personal interaction. For me the human-to-human relationship that exists - even if it is fleeting for that one performance - is very, very important. You could argue that other "performance" arts develop a sense of connection with the audience. But most of them are one-way; the performer offers something that the audience consumes. In Magic there is always an EXCHANGE. And that is what exhilarates me while performing. Unlike a musical performance where it is simply repeating what you have practiced, magic includes an interaction and a 'reading' of the audience AS you perform.
</opinion>
Something that is 'special' (admittedly not entirely unique) about performing magic is the deep, close, personal interaction. For me the human-to-human relationship that exists - even if it is fleeting for that one performance - is very, very important. You could argue that other "performance" arts develop a sense of connection with the audience. But most of them are one-way; the performer offers something that the audience consumes. In Magic there is always an EXCHANGE. And that is what exhilarates me while performing. Unlike a musical performance where it is simply repeating what you have practiced, magic includes an interaction and a 'reading' of the audience AS you perform.
</opinion>
I think it's the effort to conceal the skill involved.
Let me expand on that.
When a child sees an acrobat performing and is stupefied, his mother would tell him it's possible since the acrobat has been training for a very long time; probably since they were about 2.
For painters, it's considered to be a mixture of natural creativity and hard work. Some may argue that the hard work is more important but the general public will always consider painters and other such artists to be gifted individuals. Same goes for musicians.
Cardistry too is a skill based art form. Most cardists would say that hard work, time and dedication are all that's required. Natural style is essential in carving your own identity but anyone can learn some flourishes by practicing a lot.
Magicians, on the other hand, never let it be known exactly how hard they work. They may work as hard as any artist but strive to make what they do effortless. Tommy Wonder for one often said something along the lines of 'I don't know how I did that. I became a magician to learn how I can do this'll after performing some astounding trick which leaves the spectators baffled.
For me that's the difference between magic and other art forms. A lot of people ask How did she do that after a magic performance but I've never heard anyone answer 'She's practiced for years, that's how' as an answer.
This illusion of apparent ease is what truly creates the mystical effect and differentiated magic from other art forms IMO.
If you've made it this far; thanks for reading=)
~th3ris
Let me expand on that.
When a child sees an acrobat performing and is stupefied, his mother would tell him it's possible since the acrobat has been training for a very long time; probably since they were about 2.
For painters, it's considered to be a mixture of natural creativity and hard work. Some may argue that the hard work is more important but the general public will always consider painters and other such artists to be gifted individuals. Same goes for musicians.
Cardistry too is a skill based art form. Most cardists would say that hard work, time and dedication are all that's required. Natural style is essential in carving your own identity but anyone can learn some flourishes by practicing a lot.
Magicians, on the other hand, never let it be known exactly how hard they work. They may work as hard as any artist but strive to make what they do effortless. Tommy Wonder for one often said something along the lines of 'I don't know how I did that. I became a magician to learn how I can do this'll after performing some astounding trick which leaves the spectators baffled.
For me that's the difference between magic and other art forms. A lot of people ask How did she do that after a magic performance but I've never heard anyone answer 'She's practiced for years, that's how' as an answer.
This illusion of apparent ease is what truly creates the mystical effect and differentiated magic from other art forms IMO.
If you've made it this far; thanks for reading=)
~th3ris
So many insightful comments have been posted here. To me, the most fundamental element that differentiates Magic from other art forms is the creation of the illusion that the impossible has occurred - a defiance of the laws of physics, of logic, of reality itself. Coins can not penetrate a solid table, and yet they appear to have done just that; a card someone is holding in their own hand cannot change into another, and yet it has apparently done so; a man shackled and locked in a trunk cannot change places with a woman standing upon the trunk in the veritable blink of an eye, and yet...
A good musician is interacting with the audience. Particularly when you see small shows, where the musicians are up close and personal. Even more so with certain genres. There's a guy I like here in Baltimore, we've even done shows with his band, but every time I see him it's like a conversation between him and me. We played one of his songs for our first dance at our wedding.
Any good physical performer knows to balance the apparent ease and difficulty of what they are doing. If a juggler makes it look too easy, people get bored quickly. I learned this in fire performance - I could do some pretty complicated moves, but audiences freaked out when I did fairly simple stuff and showed a little bit of the difficulty of the moves.
Gymnasts have to make it look incredibly simple and that's part of what makes that look good. If you watch partner acrobatics, that has to look smooth to look good. They have to conceal how hard they are working or it just looks like they are struggling.
Magic is clearly different from other art forms/crafts. You explain this well above. I agree, there are books which misdirect you, film can use practical effects, and a contact juggler uses something very close to sleight of hand to accomplish what they do. The differences do mater though for a few reasons.
-If there is an experience that magic can provide that no other art can provide, that makes this experience precious. We as magicians would do well to take advantage of that precious entity.
-If we are unaware of the differences then we run the risk of thinking that we are performing magic, but the audience is experiencing something different. This is akin to the singer who auditions for American Idol only to be ridiculed because they can't carry a tune.
-At some point magic and other arts meet, understanding where that point is gives the artist aded control.
It's not incredibly helpful to confuse the definition of magic either. There are 2 common definitions of magic that come up in a discussion like this.
If I over simplify things I would say that we can define magic as one of the following:
Magic is...
1 - a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight.
synonyms: allure, extra-ordinary, excitement, fascination, charm, glamour
2 - mysterious acts, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment.
synonyms: conjuring, sleight of hand, legerdemain, illusion, prestidigitation
I think that any artform can meet the first definition. In fact, I think that most fields of study or competition can reach the first definition. It's incredibly difficult but the upper level of any area can achieve this definition, even when the lower levels fail to do so. I believe that magic should be presented in a way that meets that definition. If it doesn't, or if the magician doesn't radiate that definition, then we are missing most of what makes the art of magic or any art great.
That said, I was asking the question with the second definition in mind. I think that there are some very talented artists, that call themselves magicians, that fail to understand why what they are doing is special, different, unique and precious. The goal is the first definition of magic, before you get there you need to be able competently accomplish the second.
I originally asked the question, "What is magic?" on Facebook.
I believe that magic is a presentation of what is perceived to be impossible (breaking fundamental laws of nature) by the viewer. It might also be a presentation which is, by design, inexplicable when placed against our current understanding pf how things work.
This is important because audiences react differently to presentations that they are led to believe are legitimate and when they are clearly trickery. When a magic trick is performed, the impossible takes place. The reaction is, "How in the world could that be possible?!" If a presentation is created with a plausible explanation, then the reaction is more likeley to be, "I had no idea that was possible!", or "I wonder if it would be possible for me to accomplish such a feat?"
Both questions address something that I think is very important. At what point does a presentation became a presentation of magic and at what point does it stop? What doe we need to add to a piece of art for it to be considered a piece of magic? And, what do we need to take away from a piece of magic for it to become a manifestation of another form of art?
I believe that magic is a presentation of what is perceived to be impossible (breaking fundamental laws of nature) by the viewer. It might also be a presentation which is, by design, inexplicable when placed against our current understanding pf how things work.
This is important because audiences react differently to presentations that they are led to believe are legitimate and when they are clearly trickery. When a magic trick is performed, the impossible takes place. The reaction is, "How in the world could that be possible?!" If a presentation is created with a plausible explanation, then the reaction is more likeley to be, "I had no idea that was possible!", or "I wonder if it would be possible for me to accomplish such a feat?"
Both questions address something that I think is very important. At what point does a presentation became a presentation of magic and at what point does it stop? What doe we need to add to a piece of art for it to be considered a piece of magic? And, what do we need to take away from a piece of magic for it to become a manifestation of another form of art?
See, here is when we run into a fundamental issue.
If something is clearly impossible, that does not make it magical. I think, in many cases, that's the easiest way to remove any possibility of magic from a performance. Humans are not stupid - we know when something isn't actually possible in most cases, and we generally will automatically assume it's done by some method we didn't notice.
On a fundamental level we, as humans, believe that everything has to fit within the rules, somehow. We may not understand the rules, but we understand that certain things just aren't really possible. That is, unless someone explains how this event happens to fit within the rules. If something is presented that clearly breaks the rules, we cannot engage with it, because we cannot relate it to anything we understand.
There's another elephant in the room that is also important to acknowledge: Our labels are meaningless.
No matter what we call something, what matters is what the audience perceives. If the two things do not line up, it doesn't resonate with the audience. We may think we're doing something magical, but if the audience thinks it's stupid, then it's stupid. We may think we're creating art, but if the audience doesn't get it, then it's just someone faffing about on stage.
So we can say "Magic is magic because it has X" but that doesn't matter. What matters is what the audience calls it.
And if the audience calls something magical, then it's magical. That's why these things are so hard to define - because we're trying to pin a definite label onto something that is a subjective experience.
I don't think that much of what I see done by a "magician" is magical or artistic. Most magicians have nothing to say, do not even seem to try to evoke an emotional response, and the show would be no different if there was no audience at all. The magician is there to show you how clever he thinks he is, and your job is to indulge his bloated ego.
Set the ego aside and focus on creating an experience for the audience and you might create some art. But there is nothing magic has that couldn't also be done with another art form. A singer/songwriter/musician who locks eyes with someone in the audience while singing about something they care about can evoke just as strong a feeling of awe and connection as any talented magician.
If something is clearly impossible, that does not make it magical. I think, in many cases, that's the easiest way to remove any possibility of magic from a performance. Humans are not stupid - we know when something isn't actually possible in most cases, and we generally will automatically assume it's done by some method we didn't notice.
On a fundamental level we, as humans, believe that everything has to fit within the rules, somehow. We may not understand the rules, but we understand that certain things just aren't really possible. That is, unless someone explains how this event happens to fit within the rules. If something is presented that clearly breaks the rules, we cannot engage with it, because we cannot relate it to anything we understand.
There's another elephant in the room that is also important to acknowledge: Our labels are meaningless.
No matter what we call something, what matters is what the audience perceives. If the two things do not line up, it doesn't resonate with the audience. We may think we're doing something magical, but if the audience thinks it's stupid, then it's stupid. We may think we're creating art, but if the audience doesn't get it, then it's just someone faffing about on stage.
So we can say "Magic is magic because it has X" but that doesn't matter. What matters is what the audience calls it.
And if the audience calls something magical, then it's magical. That's why these things are so hard to define - because we're trying to pin a definite label onto something that is a subjective experience.
I don't think that much of what I see done by a "magician" is magical or artistic. Most magicians have nothing to say, do not even seem to try to evoke an emotional response, and the show would be no different if there was no audience at all. The magician is there to show you how clever he thinks he is, and your job is to indulge his bloated ego.
Set the ego aside and focus on creating an experience for the audience and you might create some art. But there is nothing magic has that couldn't also be done with another art form. A singer/songwriter/musician who locks eyes with someone in the audience while singing about something they care about can evoke just as strong a feeling of awe and connection as any talented magician.
@ Josh Burch: "If there is an experience that magic can provide that no other art can provide, that makes this experience precious. We as magicians would do well to take advantage of that precious entity...At some point magic and other arts meet, understanding where that point is gives the artist aded control."
What a fascinating discussion this is. There are so many layers of the onion of magic, that when they have begun to be peeled away, it reveals itself as virtually infinite.
I have been personally intrigued for quite some time with the idea that the performance of magic, depending on the individual artist's own creativity, preferences and talents, allows for the incorporation of other art forms. I like to encompass singing, comedy and impressions, acting/theatre, ventriloquism (on a very amateurish, but funny level) - even dance - into my performances. For example, in my multiplying rabbit routine, "on the fateful night that these rabbits met and fell in love their eyes met from across the room," and I break into "Rabbits in the night exchanging glances, wondering in the night what were the chances..." (sung to the tune of "Strangers in the night'). People really respond well to this because it is unexpected and adds another dimension to the presentation, and they always crack up. I have the rabbits come to life, talking to and interacting with the audience in a high voice (and the spectators, in turn, will often say and do very funny things). When I talk about the rabbits dancing the night away at the "Bunny Hop", I pantomime them dancing and throwing and spinning one another in the air, as I sing a few bars of the Bee Gees' "Stayin' Alive."
In one one of my card routines, after a card is returned, I ask, "Would you like me to shuffle." They generally say yes, and then I do a little soft-shoe type dance for a few seconds. These are just some examples of how multifaceted the performance of magic allows us to be, if we choose. I consider myself a magical entertainer as opposed to a magician - the enjoyment, fun, uplifting and involvement of the PEOPLE is everything to me.
What a fascinating discussion this is. There are so many layers of the onion of magic, that when they have begun to be peeled away, it reveals itself as virtually infinite.
I have been personally intrigued for quite some time with the idea that the performance of magic, depending on the individual artist's own creativity, preferences and talents, allows for the incorporation of other art forms. I like to encompass singing, comedy and impressions, acting/theatre, ventriloquism (on a very amateurish, but funny level) - even dance - into my performances. For example, in my multiplying rabbit routine, "on the fateful night that these rabbits met and fell in love their eyes met from across the room," and I break into "Rabbits in the night exchanging glances, wondering in the night what were the chances..." (sung to the tune of "Strangers in the night'). People really respond well to this because it is unexpected and adds another dimension to the presentation, and they always crack up. I have the rabbits come to life, talking to and interacting with the audience in a high voice (and the spectators, in turn, will often say and do very funny things). When I talk about the rabbits dancing the night away at the "Bunny Hop", I pantomime them dancing and throwing and spinning one another in the air, as I sing a few bars of the Bee Gees' "Stayin' Alive."
In one one of my card routines, after a card is returned, I ask, "Would you like me to shuffle." They generally say yes, and then I do a little soft-shoe type dance for a few seconds. These are just some examples of how multifaceted the performance of magic allows us to be, if we choose. I consider myself a magical entertainer as opposed to a magician - the enjoyment, fun, uplifting and involvement of the PEOPLE is everything to me.
I like the idea of impossibility, but I include within that the inexplicable. I believe that most thinking adults would at least settle on inexplicable. I think many people experience magic like this.
"He says he is going to do something impossible. He does that. I know that it is not impossible but the way that he did it is inexplicable. In every way I can think of that was impossible."
We create the rules within our story. It would be strange for Iron Man to pick up Thor's hammer. It would be strange if Darth Vader fought with a Super Soaker in one hand and a flame thrower in the other. Those actions are outside of the rules of these character's universe. If as magicians we claim to perform the impossible, as part of our character, then we better be performing what we believe the audience will perceive as impossible. The rules and definitions we create for our performances are often felt rather than stated but they provide the foundation of our performing experience and lend consistency to our persona.
Of course, we need to be in touch with what our audience is experiencing. We need to be honest and receive feedback to make sure that what we think we are doing is what the audience experiences. This applies to any art. If a terrible singer thinks they are great, they are just as lost as a magician who takes 2 minutes to solve a Rubik's cube on stage and calls it magic.
I previously stipulated that I want to focus on the best magic (Ricky Jay, Eugene Burger, Derek Delgaudio Derren Brown style magic). These magicians seem to realize that magic can be art and in my opinion do a good job at making art out of their magic. They are not the low level of magicians that most fall into.
If I want to create a theatrical experience for my audience then there are certain liberties that I can take in theater. Peter Pan can fly using wires that are clearly visible because the audience concedes that they are in a theater watching a story about a kid that can fly. When David Copperfield flies the audience experiences something completely different. I do not think that what they experience while watching David Copperfield "fly" can be replicated by another medium. If it can be, perhaps it should.
I think that I am having a hard time being understood here. I don't think that there is a "nothing camp". Magic is clearly a medium different than other mediums. Right? What is that difference? This is the main question I'm asking.
Music is a sound based art form. It uses sounds in an organized or deliberate way to elicit an emotion, or feeling. If you went to a concert and there was no sound you could hardly call it a concert.
Painting is a craft that involves adding pigment to a surface in a way that is organized or deliberate. If you went to a painting class and were given a chisel and a hunk of wood you'd be confused.
What is magic? If you go to a "Magic Show" and the guy is actually a prop comic at what point can he be called a magician? At what point do magicians actually become prop comics?
I'm looking for what defines the medium. What does magic offer that no other art does?
I agree. That's why I tried to be clear and mention only magicians who consistently achieve art through their magic. I'm not asking whether or not a crappy magician is an artist. That much is clear.
I can't speak for any other proficiency or any other person...
For me Magic is an escape.
I can for those minutes or hours escape from the torment my mind puts me through on a daily basis. I don't care to explain that in detail, nor do I believe it is right for this forum. However, the sleights, the gaffs and the philosophy of magic have kept me going. I'm not sure if I'd be here today if it weren't for magic.
I cannot perform nor can I record myself.. I've tried.
But magic to me is a life preserver..in an ocean.
Magic is different for everyone and means something different to everyone.
Thank you to every single person that posts on this forum.
You... are magic......
For me Magic is an escape.
I can for those minutes or hours escape from the torment my mind puts me through on a daily basis. I don't care to explain that in detail, nor do I believe it is right for this forum. However, the sleights, the gaffs and the philosophy of magic have kept me going. I'm not sure if I'd be here today if it weren't for magic.
I cannot perform nor can I record myself.. I've tried.
But magic to me is a life preserver..in an ocean.
Magic is different for everyone and means something different to everyone.
Thank you to every single person that posts on this forum.
You... are magic......
So, the trouble here is that you seem to be asking two different questions at the same time.
"What defines the medium" is not at all necessarily what it may offer that nothing else does.
The medium is defined by the skills used to create the performance. That's on the performer's side. The performer has to use the skills of "magic" (as an umbrella category, which covers a huge amount of skills, some of which are also included in other categories) to be a magic show.
But from the audience's perspective, I don't think magic offers anything that is distinctly unique. Anything one can experience at a magic show, one can experience elsewhere from other mediums and art forms.
I think most people who call themselves magicians are really just prop comics, personally. If the performer is not offering a magical experience, it's not magic to me.
I think the original question was quite clear and it's all getting a bit pedantic. The latter question 'what does magic offer that no other medium does' is much clearer, and it's a great talking point.
I like the talk about the fine line between inexplicable and impossible. Impossible can come off silly, but hit that sweet spot between inexplicable and impossible and you cause the spectator to be genuinely astonished. That's unique.
I like the talk about the fine line between inexplicable and impossible. Impossible can come off silly, but hit that sweet spot between inexplicable and impossible and you cause the spectator to be genuinely astonished. That's unique.
Everytime I reframe the question to try to be more specific people keep giving me answers that don't answer the question I'm going for.
What is magic?
If something is not impossible can it qualify as magic?
What makes magic different than other arts in the eyes of the audience?
Each of these was an attempt to get a definition the medium of magic. We are used to answering the more artistic version of the question but I just want to know the grass roots foundation of what magic is. What will an audience see as magic? If they are going to a magic show, what needs to happen for them to believe that they saw a magic show?
The first part of the question is what I'm getting at, the second part is to explain that I want to define it in the eyes of the audience not from the perspective of the magician.
What skills define magic from the view of the audience?
Yet an audience is able to say, "That's a magician, that's a comic, that's a juggler that's a director". There is a difference in what the artist does. What is that difference?
A while back a layman friend of mine saw a famous mentalist performed. A large part of his act was spoon bending. At the end of it all my friend was fine with calling the performance a piece of magic. The performer was a magician in his eyes. This delusion is common among magicians. They think they are one thing, or that they are doing one thing bit are in fact doing something else according to the audience. This is what I want to avoid.
I already know what I think makes magic art. I'm not asking that question. The answer to that question is very subjective anyways. I don't want to know what makes something magical I want to know what magic is. This is why I stipulated that we are talking about the best magicians.
Most would not argue that what Ricky Jay, David Copperfield, Derek Delgaudio or Eugene Berger does is both magic and magical. I don't want to talk about whether or not what they do is magical, I want to talk about what makes what they do magic.
Thank you! I'm not trying to go into a long philosophical battle over "What is magic?" this has been done before. I'm not interested in defining magic as an art. That's an old conversation.
Ninolng, you got me. This is what I want to get into. Many mentalists claim that what they do is more powerful than what magicians do. I don't think this is true at all. Richard Osterlind uses this example:
If Donald Trump was given the choice between the ability to read someone's mind or the ability to make a coin travel invisibly from one place to another which would he chose?
Osterlind claims that he would want to read minds. I think that if he had the ability to magically transport money indetectibly from one place to another that would be the clear winner. That would mean that at any point you could summon money at your fingertips.
I think that Osterlind, along with many other magicians, are missing what actually makes a mentalism act interesting. It isn't the actual ability conveyed. Making a coin vanish is clearly impossible, reading someone's mind may be possible and the mentalist may even explain how it "works". The idea that it IS possible is what makes it interesting, not the effect.
If something is just impossible then it is clear that it never happened it must have happened in a way that we are not aware of. If something is inexplicable, it means that it happened and I just can't explain it.
I actually don't know if mentalism or most geek magic would qualify as magic but I don't know.
I know I might be coming across as a pendant jerk, so I'm just going to clarify I'm not trying to be - I'm just trying to engage in the question as I understand it.
In general I would say what the audience will define as a magician is someone who does something that they (the performer) calls magic, or someone who does something that seems to defy logic/physics enough that it inspires awe.
I do a show with my wife that's 6 routines, only 1 of which is a "trick". The rest are purely skill based sideshow stunts. That show gets called a magic show by a lot of people.
I've got a friend who does a martial arts themed show. It, also, is mostly sideshow stunts - I don't recall a single thing that could be thought of as a magic trick if you really break it down. But it's called a magic act by most people who see it.
My solo show is called a variety of things. I just call it a Witch Doctor show, or mentalism, or a bizarre magic show (though I usually try to avoid using the word "magic" when referring to myself). Most people will simply refer to it as a magic show because they don't know what else to call it - they're not educated on the "proper" labels.
A lot of people call David Blaine's physical stunts magic. They're not - they're feats of endurance.
The point I'm getting to with all of this is simply that we, as magicians/performers, don't actually have much of a say in how we are labelled by the lay audience. We can try to call ourselves or our act one thing, but if the general public decides it's something else, well, it's something else.
So, basically, if we say "Hey, come see my magic show!" people are going to repeat that until they see it - "Let's go to the magic show, honey!" But once they see it, they will make their own choices. It will most likely stay a magic show in their mind, because as previously mentioned they lack alternative labels, but if they decide it's a stunt show - then it's a stunt show. Or whatever.
Sometimes even if something is a magic show, it's such a unique show that they don't know if it fits "magic show" or not. This has also happened with my solo show, where I'll get comments like, "I don't know if I'd call it a magic show. It's like a magic show, but not really." Or one of my favorites, "It's like a magic show, but for intelligent people."
I can't remember who I was talking to or if it was an interview or what, but recently I heard a magician say that he showed up for a gig with all his props and stuff, and the people running the show genuinely thought he was a prop comic. These are the people who booked him.
Here's the thing - most wouldn't argue, sure, but some would. I know it's basically blasphemy to say it, but Copperfield does not interest me and is not magical to me. He is the epitome of the style I found to be completely boring in the 80s. I would turn on specials and see these guys faffing about in flouncy shirts, futzing with cards they were clearly holding behind their hands, and pushing boxes around and think, "When are they going to do some magic?"
I really like Eugene Burger's philosophy, and I like a lot of what I have seen him do, but there's plenty that leaves me flat as well.
I've never seen Derek Delgaudio, but I've heard a description of one of his acts which I thought was excellent, and he has a top notch reputation so I am inclined to believe he's really something to see. I can't speak definitively, though.
Even Ricky Jay, who is the first magician I ever saw on TV and thought his show was actually magical, does enough skill based work that I don't think is magical at all. Watching someone do all the false deals and such isn't magic to me - it's gambling sleight of hand, basically juggling. I appreciate it for the amazing degree of fine motor skill, but it's still a skill.
So if there isn't even a performer that 100% across the board registers as magical to all audiences, doesn't that mean that the definition is ephemeral in nature and unable to be put into certain terms?
I think we'll have to settle for our own personal terms and work from that. And personally, I aim to evoke or inspire an emotional response or at least a session of introspection. If I succeed, I have created magic.
In general I would say what the audience will define as a magician is someone who does something that they (the performer) calls magic, or someone who does something that seems to defy logic/physics enough that it inspires awe.
I do a show with my wife that's 6 routines, only 1 of which is a "trick". The rest are purely skill based sideshow stunts. That show gets called a magic show by a lot of people.
I've got a friend who does a martial arts themed show. It, also, is mostly sideshow stunts - I don't recall a single thing that could be thought of as a magic trick if you really break it down. But it's called a magic act by most people who see it.
My solo show is called a variety of things. I just call it a Witch Doctor show, or mentalism, or a bizarre magic show (though I usually try to avoid using the word "magic" when referring to myself). Most people will simply refer to it as a magic show because they don't know what else to call it - they're not educated on the "proper" labels.
A lot of people call David Blaine's physical stunts magic. They're not - they're feats of endurance.
The point I'm getting to with all of this is simply that we, as magicians/performers, don't actually have much of a say in how we are labelled by the lay audience. We can try to call ourselves or our act one thing, but if the general public decides it's something else, well, it's something else.
So, basically, if we say "Hey, come see my magic show!" people are going to repeat that until they see it - "Let's go to the magic show, honey!" But once they see it, they will make their own choices. It will most likely stay a magic show in their mind, because as previously mentioned they lack alternative labels, but if they decide it's a stunt show - then it's a stunt show. Or whatever.
Sometimes even if something is a magic show, it's such a unique show that they don't know if it fits "magic show" or not. This has also happened with my solo show, where I'll get comments like, "I don't know if I'd call it a magic show. It's like a magic show, but not really." Or one of my favorites, "It's like a magic show, but for intelligent people."
I can't remember who I was talking to or if it was an interview or what, but recently I heard a magician say that he showed up for a gig with all his props and stuff, and the people running the show genuinely thought he was a prop comic. These are the people who booked him.
Here's the thing - most wouldn't argue, sure, but some would. I know it's basically blasphemy to say it, but Copperfield does not interest me and is not magical to me. He is the epitome of the style I found to be completely boring in the 80s. I would turn on specials and see these guys faffing about in flouncy shirts, futzing with cards they were clearly holding behind their hands, and pushing boxes around and think, "When are they going to do some magic?"
I really like Eugene Burger's philosophy, and I like a lot of what I have seen him do, but there's plenty that leaves me flat as well.
I've never seen Derek Delgaudio, but I've heard a description of one of his acts which I thought was excellent, and he has a top notch reputation so I am inclined to believe he's really something to see. I can't speak definitively, though.
Even Ricky Jay, who is the first magician I ever saw on TV and thought his show was actually magical, does enough skill based work that I don't think is magical at all. Watching someone do all the false deals and such isn't magic to me - it's gambling sleight of hand, basically juggling. I appreciate it for the amazing degree of fine motor skill, but it's still a skill.
So if there isn't even a performer that 100% across the board registers as magical to all audiences, doesn't that mean that the definition is ephemeral in nature and unable to be put into certain terms?
I think we'll have to settle for our own personal terms and work from that. And personally, I aim to evoke or inspire an emotional response or at least a session of introspection. If I succeed, I have created magic.