The Art vs The Tools

Sep 29, 2018
94
48

So...I watched the above video, and sure liked it. However, something got me thinking.

For those who haven't seen it...

In one part of the video, Chris says that magic isn't art when it depends on the tools. For example, he asks what if in Star Wars, instead of having a story, the director decided to have a few amazing scenes of action which were SUPER hard to make but look brilliant nevertheless, and based on such action scenes the director created the entire movie, wouldn't the movie be lame? Bland?
Similarly, if one takes a method and based on the method, the limitations and advantages of *that* method, if one creates a magic performance, it'll be a real lame performance as well.
He says that he has done this mistake just like others, and will continue to do so, (since it's not a BAD thing as such)...but not call it 'art' and also, acknowledges the fact that it is a pretty lazy appproach.

He says that don't let your tools decide your art.

While I agree it takes more of them creative juices to first come up withan effect, and then figure out how to achieve it than to take a trick and create an amazing story with it, I also feel that it isn't that much of a lazy art.

Imagine you had an idea for a brilliant painting, but you only have a pencil. Isn't it art if you manage to create that brilliant painting with a pencil?

I don't think it is that bad to let the tools influence the art.

What are your thoughts?
 

byronblaq

Elite Member
Jul 22, 2010
225
129
Melbourne, Australia
I agree,

I believe the process can unfold with both mindsets. Sometimes the tool will inspire an effect and sometimes an idea inspires an effect.

I wouldn’t say that by removing the tool you are any more artistic. I think that is defined by both the choices you make in constructing the presentation and the perfection in handling the effect. With the right presentation even something with no magic or effect can be incredible to witness.

The artistic component is ones ability to do both seemlessly.

B.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.
Sep 10, 2017
347
231
For the people who understand it, the perfect execution of the moves and sleight of hand is an art itself. If the person knows how to appreciate it, the moves are a as much of an art form as is the performance.
For example, Steve Forte doesnt do “magic” so to speak, but if you know anything about sleight of hand, you can never say he isn’t an artist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
It was difficult to listen to Chris's rambling and superficial analysis. You can’t talk about what is "art" in magic without having deeply thought about and studied magic theory. My take away from his 12 minutes of rambling is that magic should be more than the method. I agree that performing a trick right out of the box by merely narrating the adventures of the props in the magician's hands isn't art. It is a trick. The audience doesn’t care about a method.

However, I think that the method is important. Read Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles for an in-depth consideration of how developing the best method leads to stronger magic. Another text on this (which I disagree with in some respects) is Tamariz’s Magic Way.

I like the explanations provided in Larry Haas's Transformations. The "trick" is the method, the "effect" is what the audience sees and the work you put into developing the audiences experience results in a “performance piece.”

My definition of Art is that it makes the audience have a reaction beyond the medium. If you look at a painting and just see a picture, that isn’t Art. If you listen to music and just hear a song, that isn’t Art. If you see magic and just get a trick (deception using a method) it isn’t Art. Art makes the audience think or feel. It evokes an intellectual or emotional reaction to the presentation which is inextricably tied to the effect.

Chris fails to explain how you get froma a trick to Art and I don’t see Art in any of his performances. They are all about the trick and all about the magician having the power of a method the spectators can’t figure out.

The focus needs to be on the audience and their experience. I agree with Chris that the takeaway needs to be something more than momentary astonishment (contrast with Paul Harris’s essay on Art of Astonishment and then read the essays in The Books of Wonder). There also needs to be more than superficial window dressing (see Fitzke’s work which is in a big way responsible for dancing girls in sequences outfits we see in illusion shows). By this I mean the attempts to force a serious presentation on an effect that cannot sustain it or to use a hackneyed presentation that comes across as trying too hard.

To get to Art, read books by Eugene Burger, Larry Haas, Robert E. Neal, Tommy Wonder and both Volumes of Scripting magic.

I don’t think it matters in developing Art whether you start with a method, an effect, a presentation or a theme. It just matters that your final presentation piece has all the necessary elements: strong magic, strong design and a strong presentation that is inextricably linked to the effect. If you link those together in a way to evoke a strong intellectual or emotional response, you have Art.
 

Gabriel Z.

Elite Member
Apr 26, 2013
1,997
2,358
38
NY
www.youtube.com
All kidding aside. I think the part that did not make any sense to me was when he was explaining how in the "future" the audience will have a baseline understanding of magic and will have to make reference to that line when engaging with the magician. Hasn't that baseline been there since the beginning of magic. He said that people are getting smarter and wiser on to the magicians methods. I don't think this is the case I have done simple tricks for people around town. And at best they can do for the most part is guess at the method... Like they are all "X" card or you palmed it etc. There is always going to that how did they do it? Among a certain percentage of people that see magic.... Then on the other hand you will find people that will be skeptical no matter how mindblowing the effect is....In sum I think Chris was on point about like 50% of what he was saying IMHO.
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
Hasn't that baseline been there since the beginning of magic. He said that people are getting smarter and wiser on to the magicians methods....

Which is interesting coming from someone who exposes magic under the guise of teaching. Magicians have been making their own skeptics for a long time by focusing on nothing except what they are doing... which has the audience focusing on how you the magician is doing it because there is nothing else engaging their brains.

Again, there is a lot of real theory here that can help you. Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles and Tamariz's Magic Way give two different ways of addressing the spectator's search for a method. My sense is a bit of combining Ortiz's design ideas (how you build the idea that what you are about to do is impossible) and a lot of Eugene Burger's ideas of how to engage the audience based on the idea that if you engage the audience, they don't care about the method. Throw in a lot of Larry Haas' theories and Jim Steinmeyer's scripting, and I'm good to go.
 
Sep 29, 2018
94
48
Which is interesting coming from someone who exposes magic under the guise of teaching.
You know right, that people will never agree on this statement? Honestly, since I use both books and videos, I dunno how I react to this statement, but whatever...this is matter for another thread.

Just a question...(not really related to this, but happened just TODAY), I had mastered (I use that term very very lightly right now) an effect from Bobo's, an effect of coin penetration in hand. It's a pretty sweet effect. And in school, I happened to be given a coin by a friend and so, I chose to perform this, which BLEW her off (I was afraid the teacher would notice and punish me for performing during Maths class...whew!). But today, (two days later) this girl comes up to me and says that she found that effect on the net. I find this bizzare, because usually effects from books never face this kind of revelation from a spectator, a spectator has never witnessed me perform something from a book and say "I saw that online."
What more, her account wasn't really accurate, but she knew what she was speaking about.

I can only wonder if my performance in those ten to twelve seconds was so poor that it seemed as if I was challenging the spectator (a huge no-no, of course.)

Is that it? Or is there some other reason that this happened.

What makes me feel bad isn't actually this...it is the fact that she said "I found that trick on the net." in front of others who'll end up thinking that I copy paste stuff from the internet. Especially when I performed something from a book I had to pay for.

*sigh*

#sadlife

All kidding aside. I think the part that did not make any sense to me was when he was explaining how in the "future" the audience will have a baseline understanding of magic and will have to make reference to that line when engaging with the magician. Hasn't that baseline been there since the beginning of magic
The baseline indeed has been there since the beginning of magic.

And I do agree that listening to people's views on a particular matter can be exhausting :)

But I think I kinda get what he says here...The audience has been getting cleverer since the beginning of magic indeed, but the business in magic hasn't been there since the beginning of magic. Hence, the idea that the layman gets about ,magic tricks being sold and bought is relatively new. And the layman is gradually getting warmed up to that...

I *think* that's what he meant.

I don’t think it matters in developing Art whether you start with a method, an effect, a presentation or a theme. It just matters that your final presentation piece has all the necessary elements: strong magic, strong design and a strong presentation that is inextricably linked to the effect. If you link those together in a way to evoke a strong intellectual or emotional response, you have Art.
True that...

When one starts from a method and devices a trick that uses it, in general terms that trick will only be a display of the method

But what if the story surrounding the method is so rich that one doesn't even want to dig into the performance for the method, and the experience for the audience becomes truly magical?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
You know right, that people will never agree on this statement?

My point is that it is difficult to complain about people finding methods on the internet if you are yourself exposing those methods.

But today, (two days later) this girl comes up to me and says that she found that effect on the net....I can only wonder if my performance in those ten to twelve seconds was so poor that it seemed as if I was challenging the spectator (a huge no-no, of course.)

Ask this question... what was your presentation about? If the answer is "it was about having a coin penetrate my hand" then ask yourself if you saw that presentation how you would react? I'm guessing that answer is "I'd like to know how it was done." Why should her reaction be different?

Let's contrast that with an effect I do with worry stones (an adaptation of Eugene Burger's Prayer Stones routine). My presentation starts with a discussion of worry and moves into a discussion of prayer. I place two worry stones in two spectators hands and have them close their hands. I then talk about an Russian's agnostic's view of prayer being like asking God to make 2 plus 2 equal five. They open their hands and they are still each holding two worry stones. I then take the four stones and put them into one of the spectators hand and have her close her hand. I then talk about a Danish philosopher view of prayer (prayer does not change God but changes the person praying) and how my mother taught me to pray. I put my hands around the spectator's hand, hold them for a moment and as I release them say "and sometimes, you may find that your prayers are answered." The spectator opens her hand to find five worry stones. As I pick up the four worry stones, I leave her with the fifth one.

What is that presentation about? What would the spectator talk about if they explained what happened to a friend? Would they want to figure out how it is done? The word I used in my first post was a presentation that is "inextricable" from the effect. Can you separate my presentation from the effect? Neither is as powerful without the other. From the point of view of the method - it is simple in concept for anyone that has ever done a sponge ball routine. However, you are using a different medium which involves adapting coin sleights. The design of the handling shows both hands empty and makes it clear that there are only four worry stones. The work is done before the audience realizes what the effect really is (time misdirection) and before the presentation takes a turn from the agnostic to the theological. By the end of the effect, the person realizes what the magic is (after it the conditions have been established which make the outcome impossible) and actually wants the magic to happen. There is a moment, after I take my hands away and say the last line, where the spectator thinks. You can see the realization in their mind of what the effect is and a moment's hesitation before they slowly open their hands. One final note, notice there is nothing about "me" in the presentation. No "look at what I can do." I'm just the narrator, the voice over. In fact, the less they remember me doing, the better.
 
Sep 29, 2018
94
48
Here's another bit of ''something'' to think about, altho since none of you are 'laymen', I dunno if you can answer this as well... :D

Imagine if you see the movie 'Jurassic Park'. As soon as you finish seeing the movie, I tell you EXACTLY how the special effects were achieved, EXACTLY how CGI did what it did. Will you like the move any less?

Will the fear you experience when the T-Rex smiles at you through the screen, the excitement you experience when the main characters are on the verge of escaping, or the nerve-wracking anxiety you feel when the characters run with a dinosaur RIGHT BEHIND THEM, will any of these feelings lessen?

Then why does a layman stop thinking magic is amazing as soon as they find out the method?

As soon as they find out that, say, the card was palmed, why does the performance value go down to ZERO?

As it is, it is difficult to be a magician...not because magic is a super difficult art form, but because what a magician spends most of their time practising is never even SEEN by the audience. Why make it more difficult?

Why does this happen? Why is there the mindset "If I know how the trick was done, it's no longer amazing!"

If you find out what notes Mozart applied in his best pieces, if you find out the exact colours Vinci used in Mona Lisa, will you no longer love the music piece, no longer get fascinated by the Mona Lisa?

Why such a bias against magic in laymen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gabriel Z.

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,877
2,945
Imagine if you see the movie 'Jurassic Park'. As soon as you finish seeing the movie, I tell you EXACTLY how the special effects were achieved, EXACTLY how CGI did what it did. Will you like the move any less?

When I can see the CGI, yes, it drastically reduces my ability to immerse myself in the story and I enjoy it FAR less. This is why I don't watch movies I enjoyed back when CGI was just getting good. When I can see the green screens and CGI, I can't focus on anything else.

Also, the attempt to equate movies and magic is flawed. You don't experience a movie the way you experience magic - well, maybe stage magic. Movies are, by definition, separated from you. They're on the screen, you're in the audience. Magic requires interaction, movies don't.
 
Oct 23, 2014
108
102
Imagine if you see the movie 'Jurassic Park'. As soon as you finish seeing the movie, I tell you EXACTLY how the special effects were achieved, EXACTLY how CGI did what it did. Will you like the move any less?

There's a lot going on here, and I wanted to chime in because I'm in the movie industry, and I like this kind of question.

First, the audience goes into a movie KNOWING with absolute certainty that everything on the screen is a carefully crafted ruse, an artificial story designed for entertainment. If there were any possibility in our minds that the actors dying on screen were truly dying, we would be horrified! So naturally if you talk about behind-the-scenes stuff, it doesn't affect the "magic" of it.

When I can see the CGI, yes, it drastically reduces my ability to immerse myself in the story and I enjoy it FAR less. This is why I don't watch movies I enjoyed back when CGI was just getting good. When I can see the green screens and CGI, I can't focus on anything else.

I actually think this goes right back to what David is saying. If the focus of the picture is on the amazing VFX, then when the pictures ages and the VFX look kind of primitive, the movie will no longer hold up to the viewer. On the other hand, if the story is emotionally engaging then (at least for most people) the VFX will not matter as much. You're invested in the characters, the emotions they're communicating, and the VFX are incidental. That's why the original Star Wars trilogy still holds up, despite some dated SFX. On the other hand, the prequels are much less popular because they relied too much on the spectacle itself, which looks worse all the time...

In this way, movies and magic are very similar: if you don't engage people on an emotional level, all they're left to look at is the visual effect. However, unlike movies, magic actually does rely on some amount of deception about the reality of what they're seeing.

Then why does a layman stop thinking magic is amazing as soon as they find out the method?

It's tricky because if you ask any lay person if they believe in real magic, most of them will probably say no--and reasonably so. Our civilization is way past that, intellectually. But I really think that in the moment when you complete a magic demonstration, if you are successful, there will be the tiniest dose of doubt being injected into the audience's world view. If you asked them point-blank if they believed in magic now, they would probably still say no, but on the other hand they don't have ANY OTHER EXPLANATION for what just happened! So their brain can't rule out "magic" as a possibility because it doesn't have any better ideas!

I don't have any illusions of grandeur about this. We all know it's a ruse--the audience knows, rationally, that it's a ruse. Magic isn't real. But successful magic is literally using the human psyche and the way our brain solves problems against itself, with very entertaining results.

I believe that is why knowing the method behind something will kill the magic. Because as soon as your brain has a better explanation, it can't go back to that wonder-filled feeling that is tied to the mystery. You can't unsee the truth, and the truth is pretty ordinary.
 
Oct 23, 2014
108
102
I do want to note, though, that some magicians have the tendency to take things too far, trying to build an emotional experience for the audience that an effect simply can't sustain. You can only get so serious about two playing cards switching places, and adding some long story about the cards and what they represent or whatever will not guarantee emotional engagement with the audience. I just watched a routine recently where the magician gave a pretty long (and implausible) pre-amble to a simple haunted key effect, and it was terribly anticlimactic. The effect could not sustain the gravitas of the story.

Look at David Blaine. He hardly says a thing in his routines, and yet he's creating an intense emotional experience for the spectators with his countenance, his body language, his mannerisms. If he tried to tell people about the witch doctor in New Orleans that gave him this special ring, it would kill the whole mood. He knows how to sell the experience in the most minimal way. The spectators are actually the ones doing most of the work here because David isn't giving them anything to go on--which has its own benefits, if you do it right.

But of course, most people can't pull off a Blaine approach any better than the other one--it's usually somewhere in the middle. I think you just have to make sure the emotional experience you're trying to give people is proportionate to what you're actually showing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityOne

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
I do want to note, though, that some magicians have the tendency to take things too far, trying to build an emotional experience for the audience that an effect simply can't sustain.

Excellent point. Think about what my presentation above would be like if I used sponge balls rather than worry stones.

You can only get so serious about two playing cards switching places, and adding some long story about the cards and what they represent or whatever will not guarantee emotional engagement with the audience.

That is a hard one for magicians to understand because they think their cards are like people. ;)

There are few card tricks that can sustain a meaningful presentation. Most of the effects I use for that are more like "tricks with cards" (like card to bottle, torn and restored card, etc.). The only card trick I do that has a meaningful presentation is my wildcard routine. Some tricks with cards like Paul Harris' Twilight Angels and Anniversary Waltz can sustain a very meaningful presentations. Ace assemblies and pick-a-card / find-a-card tricks can't. The ambitious card routine is probably one example of where the presentations are too much for the effect -- anything that starts out personifying a card ("pretend the card is someone in your life...") is a bit too much.

I just watched a routine recently where the magician gave a pretty long (and implausible) pre-amble to a simple haunted key effect, and it was terribly anticlimactic. The effect could not sustain the gravitas of the story.

I suspect the problem is with the implausible nature of the presentation. As I said above, is the presentation inextricable from the effect? My haunted key presentation is about a wardrobe closet in my grandparent's house that I was afraid of when I was young. The door to the wardrobe would always be open when I woke up, despite it being closed when I went to sleep. I thought it was my older brothers trying to scare me (this was around the time that the Amityville Horror story came out). When I was a little older, I spent a couple of nights there by myself and the same thing happened despite my efforts to lock the wardrobe. During that stay, I remember hiding the key in the bottom drawer of a dresser in another bedroom (there is a lot more to the story which ties the key to the opening wardrobe). When my grandfather passed away, in a box of things he left to me such as his WW I medals (I'm a bit of a history buff) was the key... As with most "supernatural" type magic, less is more with the effect. The key turns over once in the spectator's hand, slowly. The story is personal and plausible and the key turning over makes sense as part of the story. I have the box from my grandfather with the medals where I keep the key. It is the attention to detail that makes something become a "presentation piece."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinoIng
Sep 29, 2018
94
48
That is a hard one for magicians to understand because they think their cards are like people.
Correct. OR they (read I) think that it makes a LOT of difference to the audience if they do the strike DL or just pick up two damn cards when an audience member isn't looking.
*Sigh*

I'm tired of reminding myself that an audience only witnesses the effect. Nothing else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityOne

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
Correct. OR they (read I) think that it makes a LOT of difference to the audience if they do the strike DL or just pick up two damn cards when an audience member isn't looking.
*Sigh*

I'm tired of reminding myself that an audience only witnesses the effect. Nothing else.

Put a different way, the goal is that the audience only witnesses the effect. That goal is accomplished by using the best among many possible methods so that the audience doesn't see something that distracts from the effect (e.g. a magician looking like they are doing something even the audience doesn't know what that something is). There is nothing wrong with deriving happiness about the difficulty and cleverness of a method, as long as the use of that method doesn't compromise the effect.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results