The Magician Online

The Magician Online is a live, interactive, online experience - in the comfort of your own home. Starring Dan White. As seen by Ashton Kutcher, Ariana Grande, Chris Rock, James Corden, Jessica Alba, and President Clinton.

See details

Art - Performance Art - Entertainment

Sep 1, 2007
723
2
Hello everyone,

There has been much debate about this between me and my girlfriend. She is a dancer, I am best described as an entertainer. I should start by laying down how I define the three terms found in the title of this blurb.

Art to me is an emotional creation, by a person who is sometimes very practiced at externalizing their feelings/emotions and making them tangible. The idea behind art (I think) is to express yourself, and by sharing it, to affect other people, either by them finding a bit of themselves in the piece of art, or at the very minimal walking away with a small but significant change in their thoughts and/or perspectives. Art is also done with no audience.

Entertainment again, according to myself is nothing more than...well, entertaining. It is a distraction from the world around us that can best be described as "amusing". Something that holds our attention, but as spectators we do not expect anything too thought provoking out of a piece of entertainment. Entertainment requires an audience.

A performance art, is the hybrid of these two ideas. It is a piece of entertainment that has been worked on and perfected or very close to perfect before ever being put into production. It has been rehearsed and looked over to every detail. Lines, blocking and timing are all mapped out, thus you are left with an amusing piece of entertainment, that is able to be peeled off layer by layer and has the potential to become profound for those watching. I believe a performance art is only 100% effective when done live.

I believe magic starts at entertainment, but when done correctly, nears a great performance art. I also think that by my standards "performance arts" (such as dance, now you see where the argument started) are merely entertaining, and I hardly ever see a dance piece I consider art. It may be "artistic" meaning it has a few artistic, aesthetically pleasing elements to it, but the art title remains out of reach.

So now that you know what I, and my girlfriend think about the topic, I'd like to hear what you guys think about the concept. Either your own theory or go ahead and jab at mine.

Thanks for your time
 
Apr 5, 2009
874
1
28
Illinois
recently in a debate in the cardistry forum i posted this as my own....Webster's (get it!?)... definition of art.

i consider music an art. i think everybody does. anybody who doesn't, shouldn't be arguing here, until they know what art is.

when i play music. i don't feel any specific emotions. i dont feel anger when playing a piece like Ticelli's Vesuvius. and i don't feel a sense of peace when i play some Bach chorales.

but what i do feel is a certain energy flowing through my as i play. i feel this fire this passion that i miss when its not there. and my band director even comments saying things like "more energy", "you guys just aren't putting any passion into this" phrases like that.

its when a passion for an art is conveyed to an audience. its when those viewing can truly sense your passion for what your doing, that is when stuff becomes art.

during the marching season this year, our assistant director said something that influenced how i view art. she said something like "let them know this is fun, let them see how you enjoy what your doing"

its when the audience can see a passion for something its when that passion for what a performer is doing is conveyed to those watching that it hits them square in the gut and they see how much you love what your doing.

so i believe anything can be art. be it baseball cardistry music impressionistic art. you name it. if the person doing it enjoys it and those viewing can see that passion portrayed. thats when it becomes art.

Web

those thoughts the way they all come together. hit me that day as i read all the responses to what art is. and my magic has never been the same.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
Hello Art is also done with no audience.

Untrue. All art requires a participant (to use langer's term) as well as an artist. They can be the same person, but usually there are more participants than the sole artists.

The artists job is to convey an intended feelingful response through the manipulation of symbolic structures.

Successful art results in the conveyance of said response, ideally in approximation of that which is intended.

It can never be identical as art is the domain of presentational (as opposed to discursive) symbols. Their connotative nature makes true definition impossible. It is also what gives them their power.

It is wrong to use the word 'communicate' when it comes to art as art is about the conveyance of feelingful response - which sometimes occurs while simulatneously communicating information. communication is the domain of discurrsive symbolism which contains denotative qualities which allow direct and accuarate informational exchange (with exceptions as we as human are always seeking to process data symbolically). It is the difference between writing instructions to operate your dvd player and composing a short story which, while overtly about an elephant in a circus, really speaks at an unspoken level about over coming fear and the acceptance of oneself.
 
Sep 1, 2007
723
2
Untrue. All art requires a participant (to use langer's term) as well as an artist. They can be the same person, but usually there are more participants than the sole artists.

The artists job is to convey an intended feelingful response through the manipulation of symbolic structures.

Successful art results in the conveyance of said response, ideally in approximation of that which is intended.

It can never be identical as art is the domain of presentational (as opposed to discursive) symbols. Their connotative nature makes true definition impossible. It is also what gives them their power.

It is wrong to use the word 'communicate' when it comes to art as art is about the conveyance of feelingful response - which sometimes occurs while simulatneously communicating information. communication is the domain of discurrsive symbolism which contains denotative qualities which allow direct and accuarate informational exchange (with exceptions as we as human are always seeking to process data symbolically). It is the difference between writing instructions to operate your dvd player and composing a short story which, while overtly about an elephant in a circus, really speaks at an unspoken level about over coming fear and the acceptance of oneself.

I meant a live audience, sorry, I thought I had implied that it did need an audience, but not a live, watching in real time audience
 
May 8, 2008
1,081
0
Cumbria, UK
I also think that by my standards "performance arts" (such as dance, now you see where the argument started) are merely entertaining, and I hardly ever see a dance piece I consider art. It may be "artistic" meaning it has a few artistic, aesthetically pleasing elements to it, but the art title remains out of reach.

*Sighs* You've got me started now...
A performance art is, by your definition
It is a piece of entertainment that has been worked on and perfected or very close to perfect before ever being put into production. It has been rehearsed and looked over to every detail. Lines, blocking and timing are all mapped out, thus you are left with an amusing piece of entertainment, that is able to be peeled off layer by layer and has the potential to become profound for those watching. I believe a performance art is only 100% effective when done live.

- Is dance a piece of entertainment that has been worked on and perfected or very close to perfected before ever being put into production?
I think we can agree that any self respecting dance company strives to perfect their dance before being put into production.

- Has dance been rehearsed and looked over to every detail? Again, I believe a dance company with any professionalism at all would do this.

- Lines, blocking and timing are all mapped out? Of course, this is undeniable.

- Does dance have the potential to become profound for those watching?
This is the debatable one, but again, I would argue that it does. As my reference, I'll link you to David Bintley's work 'Still Life At The Penguin Cafe'. Watch all the parts, I'll wait.
For those of you that didn't want to watch it, I'll summarize it for you. The dance shows a variety of extinct (or very near extinct) animals performing and socialising alongside humans and other animals in a cafe where all the species can mix. The dance opens with a dialogue that talks about how one man needlessly smashed the egg of an endangered penguin, subsequently causing the extinction of the species. If that's not profound then I don't know what is. And this isn't a lone case. 'Ghost Dances' by Christopher Bruce is a metaphor for dictatorship in Chile. 'Swansong', also by Christopher Bruce, is about victimization and humiliation being taken too far. The list goes on...

Really though, by your definition, dance, theatre and the suchlike most definitely ARE performance arts. In fact it looks like magic is the one that's lagging more into the entertainment category. Whilst magic quite definitely does have the potential to become a performance art, I would say it's much harder to achieve that than with, say, dance. It's doable, but from what I've seen, it's rarely done. Sorry, but I think I'm with your girlfriend with this one ;)
 
Sep 1, 2007
723
2
I should have written a conclusion on my thoughts, forgive me for doing it here.

I believe that performance arts are few and far between, which is dissipointing at best. All performance arts have great potential to be by my definition, performance arts. The only reason I have this definition is to set a standard for myself, and entertainment that wishes to be performance art. I also fear that magicians are not taking theory seriously, I know enough tricks by now- but I don't want to be a good magician, I wish to be a great magician. And a performance artist. Sadly, I don't know how many "magicians" these days feel the same way.

The point of this topic is to get people to consider where the lines are for them, and what standards they wish to hold themselves to, if any. So we agree more than you may have thought:)
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
Art to me is an emotional creation, by a person who is sometimes very practiced at externalizing their feelings/emotions and making them tangible. The idea behind art (I think) is to express yourself, and by sharing it, to affect other people, either by them finding a bit of themselves in the piece of art, or at the very minimal walking away with a small but significant change in their thoughts and/or perspectives. Art is also done with no audience.

I agree with most of what you said, but the last line is just bizarre. Every art has an intended audience. In your own words you define art as "expressing yourself and by sharing it, to affect other people, either by them finding a bit of themselves in the piece of art or ...... ". The audience is implicit in your definition of art, so you are contradicting yourself in the last sentence.


Entertainment again, according to myself is nothing more than...well, entertaining. It is a distraction from the world around us that can best be described as "amusing". Something that holds our attention, but as spectators we do not expect anything too thought provoking out of a piece of entertainment. Entertainment requires an audience.

I don't agree that all entertainment is trivial. A lot of it is, but it doesn't have to be this way. A stand up comedian's basic mandate is to make his audience laugh, but many stand up comedians have gone well beyond that. Just check out Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks.

I believe a performance art is only 100% effective when done live.

Cinema does fit the definition of a performance art, but it is never done live. Would you categorically say that cinema can never be effective in an artistic sense?
 
Aug 14, 2009
98
0
Behind a mask
Just to add a technical point of view to the debate:

have you heard about the muses?

Calliope Epic poetry

Clio History

Erato Lyric poetry

Euterpe Music

Melpomene Tragedy

Polyhymnia Choral

Terpsichore Dance

Thalia Comedy

Urania Astronomy

I cannot give you my definition of art, because as I said in another thread, art actually is something really really hard to really comprehend and explain.

( I didn't remember the name of the muses I wikied them)

From those muses, only 6 are considered art, wich are the only things that on their own can be considered art, have you even wonder why filmography is often named the "seventh art"? for this same reason.

The thing is, in my opinion? neither cardistry or magic is art. It can be considered a "performance piece" (just like one of my professors answered when I asked) but they cannot stand on their own as art.

By the way, show me a video of a flourisher demonstrating or expressing a message or feelings with cardistry witouth music and I will be happy :).

You get my point.
 

WitchDocIsIn

Elite Member
Sep 13, 2008
5,800
2,900
The thing is, in my opinion? neither cardistry or magic is art. It can be considered a "performance piece" (just like one of my professors answered when I asked) but they cannot stand on their own as art.

Depending on how you define the idea of "magic is art" or whatever, I think magic can be art, but usually isn't. I mentioned this thought in another thread, but I look at magic and such skills as more of the paintbrush than the painting. It is something with which art can be made, but not art in itself.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results