-
Featured Tricks
NotarizedPHOENIXCandymanMagic 101Distancia -
Card Tricks
DispositionPetroleumOmegaDouble AgentLIT -
Coin Tricks
Perfect CentsMiRAGEALCHEMYCoinONETRIFECTA -
Cardistry
SpringThumb PropulsionFlickNB3Monument -
theory11 Artists
Blake Vogt Spidey Mathieu Bich Calen Morelli Jonathan Bayme Apollo Robbins Chris Kenner Dan Sperry Dan White Dimitri Arleri Ekaterina Jason England Justin Willman Luke Jermay Tom Isaacson Wayne Houchin Christen Gerhart Andy Nyman Dan & Dave Steve CohenMeet Our Artists
Deep Question about Magic
- Thread starter Pete Pridanonda
- Start date
This is kind of a redundant question, one that gets asked at least twice a year on nearly every forum out there. . .
Magic is a performance art, an aspect of Theater; it's roots run deep in the course of human history with especial ties to the auspices of religion and the welding of psychological as well as scientific forms of Magick; prognostication, healing, transformation, etc.
As to what it means? Well, the essence of magic during our modern-times centers on the act of creating wonder & enchantment -- amusement by way of intrigue. But there are other dynamics such as how magic is able to transcend issues of language (communication) and aid those that are called to it, lending to them a vehicle by which they are able to "fit iin" and "feel normal" if not a bit superior to others. The superiority factor not being displayed as ego so much as confidence, but ego can be a factor; a self-destructive factor at that.
For me personally Magic has been a constant companion, my mistress as well as the bane of my existence at times. My passion is and has always been to create the sort of magic that evokes emotion and inspires others.
Magic is a performance art, an aspect of Theater; it's roots run deep in the course of human history with especial ties to the auspices of religion and the welding of psychological as well as scientific forms of Magick; prognostication, healing, transformation, etc.
As to what it means? Well, the essence of magic during our modern-times centers on the act of creating wonder & enchantment -- amusement by way of intrigue. But there are other dynamics such as how magic is able to transcend issues of language (communication) and aid those that are called to it, lending to them a vehicle by which they are able to "fit iin" and "feel normal" if not a bit superior to others. The superiority factor not being displayed as ego so much as confidence, but ego can be a factor; a self-destructive factor at that.
For me personally Magic has been a constant companion, my mistress as well as the bane of my existence at times. My passion is and has always been to create the sort of magic that evokes emotion and inspires others.
In aesthetics, or the philosophy of art, there is no generally agreed-upon definition of "art". Most definitions that have been attempted either exclude too much or include too much. For example, if a definition includes the idea of the application of physical craft, like painting or sculpting, then that excludes "found art", and possibly excludes architecture, as the physical object that's produced is not generally created by the architect's hand. I have devised my own definition for art, which seems to include everything we'd like to be included and exclude everything else. As I say, though, this is my own definition, so is not intended to be presented as the final word on the subject if you can think of flaws with it, or of a better definition. My definition for art is:
"Art is an act of imagination designed to inspire other acts of imagination."
On that basis, magic certainly qualifies as art. A performance of magic requires imagination on the part of the performer, and it is certainly intended to inspire the imagination of the audience. Whether it always succeeds or not is a different question, as I don't believe that the definition of art needs to encompass an exclusion for "bad" or "failed" art. An attempt at art is still art, otherwise critical consensus would always be the final arbiter and we would be left in the position where Van Gogh's work was not art when he painted it (as critical consensus did not appreciate it), but became art after his death (when the critical consensus changed), which seems to unnecessarily complicate matters.