What does magic offer that no other art does?

[WitchDocIsIn]

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.

The connection between the mind reader and the audience is what makes it interesting. It's a feeling of someone stepping right into your mind and picking up some information - it's a kind of intimacy. The plausibility of the claims of the mentalist just make it easier to feel comfortable accepting that version of reality for a little bit.

That being said, I truly believe that if a magician can get comfortable with presenting their material straight, and not immediately trivializing it by making sure everyone knows it's a trick, they can be every bit as powerful a performer as a mentalist.

I think the difference really is that to be good at mentalism someone -has- to study theater. They have to be able to create a story that a volunteer or audience will be able to invest in and engage with. One can be a great magician and never learn that skill, though.

 

[steven_raylan]

It makes spectators think that you are a god











Nah jk, probably just confusion.

 

[obrienmagic]

Gives people a chance to escape reality and embrace their childhood once again. The only two things i can think of that even closely compare are movies or books.

 

[JordyDoust]

I asked this question on Facebook and was surprised by the responses I got from magicians.

Here's the question: (Edit: ) What defines magic as a medium? What does magic offer that no other art does?

(Let us stipulate that we are talking about the best possible magic: Lance Burton, David Copperfield, Eugene Burger, Derren Brown, Derek Delgaudio, Ricky Jay level magic. What makes what they do unique when compared to the likes of Celine Dion, Carol King, LeBron James, Christopher Nolan, Stephen Spielberg, George Carlin or Bo Burnham ?)

With your permission, I would like to write a blog about this?

 

[TheMormonMagician]

What makes magic different than any other art is probably the fact that you can make people remember you for just messing around with a deck of cards. If you want to start up magic I would highly recommend it because you get to know people. You get to become more social and extraverted. Magic has this innocence about it that everyone loves so magic will be one of the best things that happened to you.

 

[FunkyBottoms]

As a professional musician and magician (different periods in my life), there is a fairly obvious difference in my mind: magic/mentalism/illusions make a different type of connection to the audience than music or acting.

Music and acting appeal to many human characteristics; inspiration, a lyrical connection to ideas or emotions, memories, and even math (subconsciously) in the case of music.

Performing an act of magic is different in that whether an intimate performance or a Copperfield extravaganza, it appeals to the human curiosity of the unknown, unexplained, and challenge, much the same way the precursor excitement of riding a new rollercoaster does to some, or a good horror movie viewer gets when the scares take place.

In magic there is a possibility in the spectators mind that something completely unexplainable or impossible is going to happen, or they will be able to defeat or discover the secret.

When the magician is honed in his or her craft, and has a talent to make that connection, the magician has the ability to connect in both a human and personal way as well, appealing again to the unknown and unexplainable as well as one to be admired.

In short, all the crafts mentioned share what makes a successful performance. Magic has the additional appeal to the unknown, challenge, mysticism, and surprise.

Also, Celine Dion transcends both as its a mystery and unexplainable why she is still being paid to perform. I keed, I keed...just joking...kind of...no, just joking, really (not)..... .

 

[FunkyBottoms]

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.

I replied to the thread then went back to read the thread from the beginning.

In short, it's the challenge, the appeal to a core human idiosycracy of being challenged, whether you're challenging ones sense of reality, or the viewer feels compelled to figure it out.

As a musician who has performed for a handful of people, a 10K+ crowd, or a hired gun on a studio album, I can say that none of the audience are "challenged" at their core. All the other connections are there, but the very heart of magic is the goal of challenge, appealing to it is a part of being mystified, entertained, etc.

No other art in this context draws on the natural human propensity to be challenged as its primary objective. That, in my mind, is a distinct and irrefutable difference when left in context to the question originally posed.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Ok. But what about philosophy? The point of philosophy is to challenge people's sense of reality. I once, accidentally, changed the course of a friend's life with a single sentence that challenged his philosophy of life.

What about writing? I have two books in the Mysteries of the Unexplained series on my shelf right now, which have inspired more mystery in my mind than any magician, ever. I've been periodically reading those books for nearly 30 years and I still get goosebumps in some sections. Several things from those books have wormed their way into my presentations.

What about documentaries about ancient civilizations? How did they do what they did? The Romans made concrete that's better than what we can make today, and we still have no idea how they did it.

What about dance? Top end dancers do things we can't comprehend and challenge what we believe we are capable of doing. Parkour Traceurs do incredible things that seem downright impossible. And yet.

Photography, music, story telling - I've felt mystery on par or exceeding that of any magic show I've seen from all of these arts. Magic is a tool. It can be used to create art, but it is not art in and of itself.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

Ok. But what about philosophy? The point of philosophy is to challenge people's sense of reality. I once, accidentally, changed the course of a friend's life with a single sentence that challenged his philosophy of life.

What about writing? I have two books in the Mysteries of the Unexplained series on my shelf right now, which have inspired more mystery in my mind than any magician, ever. I've been periodically reading those books for nearly 30 years and I still get goosebumps in some sections. Several things from those books have wormed their way into my presentations.

What about documentaries about ancient civilizations? How did they do what they did? The Romans made concrete that's better than what we can make today, and we still have no idea how they did it.

What about dance? Top end dancers do things we can't comprehend and challenge what we believe we are capable of doing. Parkour Traceurs do incredible things that seem downright impossible. And yet.

Photography, music, story telling - I've felt mystery on par or exceeding that of any magic show I've seen from all of these arts. Magic is a tool. It can be used to create art, but it is not art in and of itself.

Totally agree, but Just to add along to that last sentence - just like any other form/tool of art.

 

[FunkyBottoms]

Ok. But what about philosophy? The point of philosophy is to challenge people's sense of reality. I once, accidentally, changed the course of a friend's life with a single sentence that challenged his philosophy of life.

What about writing? I have two books in the Mysteries of the Unexplained series on my shelf right now, which have inspired more mystery in my mind than any magician, ever. I've been periodically reading those books for nearly 30 years and I still get goosebumps in some sections. Several things from those books have wormed their way into my presentations.

What about documentaries about ancient civilizations? How did they do what they did? The Romans made concrete that's better than what we can make today, and we still have no idea how they did it.

What about dance? Top end dancers do things we can't comprehend and challenge what we believe we are capable of doing. Parkour Traceurs do incredible things that seem downright impossible. And yet.

Photography, music, story telling - I've felt mystery on par or exceeding that of any magic show I've seen from all of these arts. Magic is a tool. It can be used to create art, but it is not art in and of itself.

The difference in all those examples is that challenge is not core to any of them. Anyone can prattle off examples of same, but the question (again, I said keep it in context to the original question) is that I'm sure people have heard many sentences from you that changed nothing, read books that offered no challenge, documentaries that had no challenge, songs that mean nothing.

Challenge is not intrinsic to any of arts you provided examples of. It can be a component, but that's not the question posed to the thread.

Magic is ALWAYS about a challenge, particularly to the spectator. Whether you challenge their intellect, or their own perception of reality, challenge is in there, each and every time. THAT is what separates magic from other arts.

I'll stand by my analysis.

 

[RealityOne]

In short, it's the challenge, the appeal to a core human idiosycracy of being challenged, whether you're challenging ones sense of reality, or the viewer feels compelled to figure it out.

Magic is ALWAYS about a challenge, particularly to the spectator. Whether you challenge their intellect, or their own perception of reality, challenge is in there, each and every time. THAT is what separates magic from other arts.

In performing magic, my goal is not to challenge my spectators in the sense you are talking about. I actually think that a providing a sense of challenge is a negative in most performances of magic. I use magic to spark their imagination, to touch their emotions and to encourage their sense of play. If someone walks away from my performance trying to figure out how I did what I did, then I have failed.

 

[FunkyBottoms]

...weird, a chunk of my reply disappeared. Should read:

...original question) is that What defines magic as a medium? What does magic offer that no other art does?
Philosophy is not about challenge, its core is about ethics. Documentaries are not about challenge at their core. Writing is not about challenge at its core. Dance is not about challenge at it's core. For instance I'm sure that....

Not sure what happened but there it is in its entirety.

 

[FunkyBottoms]

In performing magic, my goal is not to challenge my spectators in the sense you are talking about. I actually think that a providing a sense of challenge is a negative in most performances of magic. I use magic to spark their imagination, to touch their emotions and to encourage their sense of play. If someone walks away from my performance trying to figure out how I did what I did, then I have failed.

No body language and thumb typing are partially responsible for that.

In no way do I mean challenge as a negative. It's human nature to wonder, to seek answer. By performing an illusion, whether by sleight or otherwise, you have created a challenge. The spec has knowingly or otherwise been challenged, not in a negative way.

Why does wonder even exist? It's a challenge. If it weren't a challenge to reality, or to intellect, you would perhaps hammer a nail into a board and take a bow.

The point of performing magic is to, for you and I, elicit wonder, to create a moment where the spec is amazed, has no explanation and therefore challenged in some way.

It's a positive. It's part of what magic is. It's required, or you would simply be performing tasks, not magic, and spectators would have no reason to watch you or I perform. Spectators of magic WANT to be challenged, otherwise there is no wonder.

It's not an outright challenge. That DOES make terrible magic. It's a subconscious thing. A magician who outright challenges someone be it in words or attitude makes a terrible performer. A performer who performs magic and leaves the spectator in awe, fully entertained, "fooled" completely, has indeed been challenged. Their sense of reality is challenged. Their intellect is challenged, all by the nature of well-performed magic. The challenge isn't overt, but intrinsic.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

No body language and thumb typing are partially responsible for that.

In no way do I mean challenge as a negative. It's human nature to wonder, to seek answer. By performing an illusion, whether by sleight or otherwise, you have created a challenge. The spec has knowingly or otherwise been challenged, not in a negative way.

Why does wonder even exist? It's a challenge. If it weren't a challenge to reality, or to intellect, you would perhaps hammer a nail into a board and take a bow.

The point of performing magic is to, for you and I, elicit wonder, to create a moment where the spec is amazed, has no explanation and therefore challenged in some way.

It's a positive. It's part of what magic is. It's required, or you would simply be performing tasks, not magic, and spectators would have no reason to watch you or I perform. Spectators of magic WANT to be challenged, otherwise there is no wonder.

It's not an outright challenge. That DOES make terrible magic. It's a subconscious thing. A magician who outright challenges someone be it in words or attitude makes a terrible performer. A performer who performs magic and leaves the spectator in awe, fully entertained, "fooled" completely, has indeed been challenged. Their sense of reality is challenged. Their intellect is challenged, all by the nature of well-performed magic. The challenge isn't overt, but intrinsic.

Well in a way, Philosophy is a challenge to commonalities in our life. A lot of movies and books focus on challenging our reality. Optical illusions challenge our reality - a lot of artists focus on them. Hell, culinary artists challenge us with surprising things to change our view point on the reality of food. A lot of art forms are challenges at their core, which is why we feel wonder. Do you not feel wonder when you see athletes going at it longer than you can imagine? Does it not challenge your ideas as to what is humanly possible? Just because magic uses a different method doesn't mean it is set apart from everything else.

 

[FunkyBottoms]

Well in a way, Philosophy is a challenge to commonalities in our life. A lot of movies and books focus on challenging our reality. Optical illusions challenge our reality - a lot of artists focus on them. Hell, culinary artists challenge us with surprising things to change our view point on the reality of food. A lot of art forms are challenges at their core, which is why we feel wonder. Do you not feel wonder when you see athletes going at it longer than you can imagine? Does it not challenge your ideas as to what is humanly possible? Just because magic uses a different method doesn't mean it is set apart from everything else.

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

 

[Maaz Hasan]

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

I see what you're saying but I think challenge is the wrong word. More like.... inexplainability?

Here's how I see it: Magic requires wonder, but it isn't the only art that requires wonder. Magic without the wonder isn't magic. At the same time, a sci-fi novel, or even realistic fiction without the wonder isn't a story without that same wonder, its just a book with sentences in it.

Also, you mentioned that in all the other examples, you don't have that amazement continually. You don't have that in magic either. No one is amazed when you are asked to pick a card, sign it, return it in the deck, shuffle it, and through your patter. The wonder lies in the performance, but the climax is where it hits the spectators. Just like it does in a ball game, or a painting, or a culinary ... whatever the word is (to be fair, a big mac isn't really a culinary art Besides, it challenges you more than other foods when you wonder whats in it ).

 

[FunkyBottoms]

I see what you're saying but I think challenge is the wrong word. More like.... inexplainability?

Here's how I see it: Magic requires wonder, but it isn't the only art that requires wonder. Magic without the wonder isn't magic. At the same time, a sci-fi novel, or even realistic fiction without the wonder isn't a story without that same wonder, its just a book with sentences in it.

Also, you mentioned that in all the other examples, you don't have that amazement continually. You don't have that in magic either. No one is amazed when you are asked to pick a card, sign it, return it in the deck, shuffle it, and through your patter. The wonder lies in the performance, but the climax is where it hits the spectators. Just like it does in a ball game, or a painting, or a culinary ... whatever the word is (to be fair, a big mac isn't really a culinary art Besides, it challenges you more than other foods when you wonder whats in it ).

I wish I wasn't so damn wordy sometimes, you have a gift for compressing the dialog while I write a book in reply. (And indeed, Big Mac was probably not the best reference, but it was definitely the most unappetizing!)

I tend to agree with your points as a whole, my only stickler is the verbiage as you interpreted what I said and responded to that interpretation instead of what I wrote.

What I really mean is challenge. "Wonder" is indeed almost interchangeable with "inexplicablity" as you defined it. I could in fact substitute it in my position with wonder, but the outcome wouldn't change: challenge happens after every trick or it's not magic (or possibly performed badly ).

Using your example, one can shuffle, force a card, have it signed, return to deck, shuffle, and indeed none of that is amazing or wonder-inducing, it's not meant to be. It is absolutely the climax, the pinnacle, the hook, the end, the deception, the illusion, the trick, which is the purpose of the entire performance.

That climax doesn't ever mean face-up sifting through a deck, seeing the sig, plucking the card and saying "Eureka!!". Anyone could do that. No challenge is created. Nobody is wondering "How?"

No, the climax and whole point of that performance is pulling the card out of their back pocket, or ear, or purse, lighting it on fire, throwing it in the air and raining a full deck of cards, all with his sig! (That would be an awesome trick, definitely makes up for the Big Mac Cullinary Definition Debacle ). In fact, that is exactly MY point, that Magic MUST setup this dynamic, or it's not magic. No other art requires this to be "of that art", only the art of magic.

Seriously, whatever the climax is, the entire point of the performance is the climax, and in all those tricks, at the end of each performance, the spec challenges him or herself to square what they saw with reality, what they know. They are challenged, induced by the wonder, excitement, and skill of the performers patter,comfort, etc. This IS magic in the context of the posed question.

That's what I mean by challenge, and all in context, I think my "test" bears fruit in that regard. The magic performance is indeed "inexplicable", or "wondrous", but in magic, the very intent is to evoke a "How can that be?" (a challenge) response with the climax. It must be there to even be magic.

You and I very likely see things very similar, and we are somewhat debating semantics at this point.

I do believe that what separates magic from other arts is that the intent is always, without fail, to create wonder, doubt, illusion, deception, all of which are intended to create a dichotomy, a challenge to square what they know with what they just witnessed. No other art requires this outcome in every instance.

I believe magic is unique in the performance arts in this regard, but I'm open to examples of either, namely:

A magic trick or routine which does not have as its primary goal the intent to create a challenge to square the intended deception to reality.

Or...

The name of any other art which requires every single example or performance to require creating the dichotomy/challenge dynamic for the viewer or spectator.

Again, interesting and fun conversation, thanks for the enjoyable and engaging dialog!

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

I'm sure people have heard many sentences from you that changed nothing, read books that offered no challenge, documentaries that had no challenge, songs that mean nothing.

Your entire argument falls apart with this sentence.

If I were to take a wild guess, I'd say I have felt "challenged" as you put it equally by any other art as I have by a magic performance. In fact, I have probably felt more wonder and magical-ness from arts OTHER than magic, than magic performances. Way too many magicians think that doing the trick is enough - it's not.

I think the problem here is comparing things at different levels. The best magicians will consistently (not always, but consistently) create a feeling of wonder and awe. Sure. But then again, so will the best of many other arts and activities. You can't compare the top of top of magicians to the middle-ground in other fields and expect valid results.

won·der
ˈwəndər/
noun
noun: wonder
1.
a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

Where in there does it say anything about a challenge?

the intent is always, without fail, to create wonder, doubt, illusion, deception, all of which are intended to create a dichotomy, a challenge to square what they know with what they just witnessed.

See, you're projecting here. You're taking your concept of what magic is, and assuming that's what everyone wants to do with it.

Further, you're throwing several different concepts into one, piling them on top of your original statement, in order to make it fit.

The most magical point, in my opinion, is NOT when they are thinking about a method, or trying to "square what they know with what they just witnessed" - when something is truly magical the audience just sits there, entranced, experiencing it. On after they come down from that do they start to process it in the way that you mean.

The problem is that most magicians rarely or never cause that reaction. Most are perfectly content to do what you are referring to and challenge the audience right off the bat - which is fine. There are many rooms in the house of magic.

I suspect a large part of this is that a lot of people haven't really experienced much in the way of good art. Not necessarily the stuff you see in a museum, but the stuff you see out in the desert at Burning Man at 3 in the morning when you've been on a bicycle for hours and a dust storm just cleared and suddenly there it is, rising from the playa. The "concerts" where some folk singer is pouring her heart out to 20 people in an apartment. The paintings created by someone who does it because they can't NOT paint. Photos by people who are desperately struggling to show you what they see. Poems by people who spend their lives looking for the words and the rhythm to convey their soul to you.

Most people don't go out of their way for that - so they have no equal grounds to compare things.

 

[RealityOne]

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.

The 21 Card Trick?

I see what you're saying but I think challenge is the wrong word. More like.... inexplainability?

What I really mean is challenge. "Wonder" is indeed almost interchangeable with "inexplicablity" as you defined it. I could in fact substitute it in my position with wonder, but the outcome wouldn't change: challenge happens after every trick or it's not magic (or possibly performed badly ).

I think a better definition would be that magic creates the illusion of impossibility. Some people react with astonishment, some with wonder and some react to a perceived challenge. I believe that reaction can be guided by the presentation.

The magic performance is indeed "inexplicable", or "wondrous", but in magic, the very intent is to evoke a "How can that be?" (a challenge) response with the climax. It must be there to even be magic.

Here is where I disagree. The "how can that be?" response is one possible response. For me, if the audience is thinking of "how" the effect is accomplished, then I've failed. My closer is an egg bag routine with a story about a young girl in Nazi occupied France during the Second World War. The egg vanishes or appears in the bag because she wishes it so. Her wishes make sense within the story which has an underlying moral of not judging people until you know what motivates their behavior. At the end of that routine, the reaction I want is "that was beautiful" and not "how did he do that with the eggs?" After one show, someone came up to me and asked me about what I said during another effect so she could remember the presentation to tell her husband. Another spectator came up and told me (what has now become the title of my show) that she had seen a lot of magic and my performance was "a different kind of magic." When spectators tell me about an effect they like, they don't focus on what happened "magically" but talk in terms of a blending of the presentation and effect - "the one with the letters from Satan and St. Peter and the torn dollar bills"; "the one were you mixed apples and oranges in that glass jar"; "the one where you did the compatability test with the couple and the two decks of cards", etc. For my style, the "how" is as relevant to my performance as how a movie accomplishes special effects is to enjoying a film

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.

My answer is the difference is that it presents the illusion of impossibility. But your further question was:

Here's the question: What does magic offer that no other art does?"

When we start talking about "art", that is where the "nothing" response comes in. Those of us who responded that way see magic as a medium to achieve (in rare circumstances) art or at least artistic presentations. The illusion of impossibility (or "challenge" or "wonder" or "astonishment") is not limited to magic and magic is not limited to using those traits to create art. The defining characteristics of magic as well as the characteristics put into a performance in addition to the "trick" can overlap with any other creative medium. All artistic mediums allow the performer to use the techniques to develop something that expresses more than the sum of the technical components used by the performer. The only difference is the techniques. An individual can use the techniques from any art form to produce art. In that way, there is no difference. What makes the difference is how that individual uses the techniques and the effect the use of those techniques has on the audience.