Is the Performance of Magic as Personal...

[romeo sierra]

I know it's been a while since I made any noise, but I've been thinking...

When you compare magic to more mainstream performance arts like music, dance, or theater-- do you believe magic makes as much of an emotional impact on an audience? I've recently been to a few concerts, and I found it amazing how a large audience of over 10,000 people could feel intimately connected to specific songs on a very individualistic level. I'm not sure if magic accomplishes that same relationship. I think it would be nice to take it to that level, but I'm unsure how to go about it.

I've performed for a long time. I have a fair share of great stories and reactions to the magic I do. But after some serious reflection, I don't really think anything I do makes as memorable an impact as the other mentioned crafts. Think about it-- people can recall and sing timeless songs from decades ago. People can quote scenes from Shakespeare and relate 100% to the themes of his work. Is it possible for a performance of magic to be so memorable or touching that it could become a comparable, lasting milestone in someone's life? I would argue that such a performance of magic hasn't really occurred yet. How do you typically make magic something personal for the people watching it?


RS.

 

[MitchellStafiej]

Yes, it can. Like music, film, theatre; magic is a form of entertainment that pulls on the emotions of an audience. It's up to the performer to evoke that sort of emotion. If you watch a bad film, then it won't stick with you. Now if you watch a tremendous film then of course you will remember it, talk about it for weeks on end.

Therefore it's up to the performer to make that personal experience. Now magic might not be looked at as grand as any other form of entertainment, but that doesn't mean you can't make it as personal as you want. It's up to YOU, the performer, to create that sense of feeling. I think if you're performing and receiving great reactions you're a step of the way there. You now have to step it up! Keep performing, get into your audience's mind.



Mitch

 

[RDChopper]

I've performed for a long time. I have a fair share of great stories and reactions to the magic I do. But after some serious reflection, I don't really think anything I do makes as memorable an impact as the other mentioned crafts. Think about it-- people can recall and sing timeless songs from decades ago


RS.

They remember it, and it has a strong impact on them, because it its something personal to them, in a way or another it connects with them on a personal level, it has a meaning to them, it brings them memories....Same can be done with magic, if you evoke memories or use emotional hooks in your routines, I think that it pretty much has the same impact, I had people talking about the history that I telled them and how it resemble a lot of things about his life(usually My ACR). So as my buddy mitchell says, it's up to us to make it memorable.

 

[romeo sierra]

Eh... I just don't think those responses are good enough.

I guess I'm also asking why magic isn't as influential or as "mainstream" as music, theatre, film, etc. Why has it remained at a standstill in terms of entertainment? There are countless songs that hit a nerve in people and inspire awe. There are countless movies and plays which people are drawn to and see over and over again just to re-experience that world. The same can be said about different forms of dance. In magic-- I think there's only a select few of acts which inspire the same emotional value at the same level as other arts. For the most part, I think it's stagnant in its growth as a whole.

I also believe that anyone who thinks magic shouldn't be commercial due to its inherent secrecy is part of the problem. I think that's a laughable argument. Every other craft has its "secrets" as well. Whether it be the notes to a song, steps in a dance, or lines in a script-- it takes much more than mechanics to make a craft respectable and inspiring. But for some reason-- magic's not like that. What do other arts have that magic doesn't? And can we apply those characteristics to magic to make it more relevant and promising today?

RS.

 

[RDChopper]

But for some reason-- magic's not like that. What do other arts have that magic doesn't? And can we apply those characteristics to magic to make it more relevant and promising today?

RS.

something quick before I go to sleep.


In the case of music, the thing I think that music has that magic not, it's that in order to write a song about, let's say a broken heart because someone cheated on us, we can't write about something that we dont or havent experience, a lot of times when someone composes a song it cames from within, from personal experiences,and therefor isn't just made from lyrics and music, the song actually means something to us, it represents something, and all the people that have experience or something of the like are going to feel identifyed with the song, hearing it makes them feel better.

That's what magic doesnt has, Yeah, we can come up with sleights, routines etc but it doesnt mean anything to us, if we adjust patter, it could mean something to them, but from the beggining, the routine or patter never meaned anything to us, we just created, perfected it and perform it, but it doesnt has anything personal that can connect with us, anyone can do the same patter in a trick or routine, but not everyone can sing a song with the same feeling that the original composer, because the composer feels what he writes.

We are interpreters.

Sorry, if im not giving the answers that you like, maybe later I'll try to write something more useful.

 

[MitchellStafiej]

Eh... I just don't think those responses are good enough.

I guess I'm also asking why magic isn't as influential or as "mainstream" as music, theatre, film, etc. Why has it remained at a standstill in terms of entertainment? There are countless songs that hit a nerve in people and inspire awe. There are countless movies and plays which people are drawn to and see over and over again just to re-experience that world. The same can be said about different forms of dance. In magic-- I think there's only a select few of acts which inspire the same emotional value at the same level as other arts. For the most part, I think it's stagnant in its growth as a whole.

I also believe that anyone who thinks magic shouldn't be commercial due to its inherent secrecy is part of the problem. I think that's a laughable argument. Every other craft has its "secrets" as well. Whether it be the notes to a song, steps in a dance, or lines in a script-- it takes much more than mechanics to make a craft respectable and inspiring. But for some reason-- magic's not like that. What do other arts have that magic doesn't? And can we apply those characteristics to magic to make it more relevant and promising today?

RS.

Why? It's not hard, music makes money, films make money, magic doesn't (not as much). It's less of a sure thing when it comes to magic. It's often been viewed as much more of a childish hobby rather than a form of entertainment. More of a birthday party event than a mainstream money grabbing art.

Why do you think we only get one David Blaine special on a major network once every couple of years? Now, yes, there were the odd reality shows, which in turn were busts. This is just adding to the stereotype that magic is simply a silly hobby.

And now, I'm not going to lie, eventually magic does get redundant. I think as magicians we don't always see this. People don't want to sit down and watch the same tricks once a week. They see cards, they don't see the different effects we do, they only see the same thing over and over. A pack of cards. They'd much rather sit down, turn on the television and watch a different film every week. And as a filmmaker, I have no qualms with that.

You said our first answers weren't good enough, but perhaps your question wasn't good enough. We answered your question perfectly - How do you typically make magic something personal for the people watching it?

People don't identify with magic... it's as simple as that. Maybe it's because we as performers have not given spectators that opportunity. People identify with music because it speaks of past experience that people can relate to. Films have characters that can sometimes be very similar to the audiences watching. People enjoy identifying with something to get that personal connection.

Hope that made sense.

Mitch

 

[Steerpike]

Eh... I just don't think those responses are good enough.

No they aren't. Magic isn't like theater. It is theater. And we need to treat it as such if we want to advance.

Can magic have a larger impact on people? Yes. Does it often? No.

This is a large reason that I study Jungian psychology and the works of Joseph Campbell. Paul Harris writes in great detail about the primal appeal of magic, but the practical means for getting there are few and far between. It's also why I so heavily study other art forms, which, let's face it, it seems many magicians are loathe to do.

I guess I'm also asking why magic isn't as influential or as "mainstream" as music, theatre, film, etc. Why has it remained at a standstill in terms of entertainment? There are countless songs that hit a nerve in people and inspire awe. There are countless movies and plays which people are drawn to and see over and over again just to re-experience that world. The same can be said about different forms of dance. In magic-- I think there's only a select few of acts which inspire the same emotional value at the same level as other arts. For the most part, I think it's stagnant in its growth as a whole.

The answer is to stop and consider why.

From the magic side, I look to Robert-Houdin, Houdini, and David Blaine. All of these men made magic acceptable for everybody. Robert-Houdin in particular may be quoted a lot on one line, but what people so often forget is that this man was so popular and his performance so great, that his government asked him to intervene in a diplomatic envoy to avert a god damn war!

What were these men doing that we have yet to do?

Now let's consider what the other art forms are doing that we're not? Allow me to reference a personal example.

One of my all-time favorite musicians is Ronnie James Dio. Ronnie was the archetypal classic rock/metal vocalist, a little guy with a huge voice and a philosophy of rock as a way of life. His breakthrough came in Rainbow before he joined Black Sabbath for two albums and then went solo. His debut solo album, Holy Diver was so influential it almost single-handedly created an entire subgenre of metal: power metal. Dio was obsessed with mysticism, the occult, and a portrayal of the struggle of good versus evil. He viewed everything in life through a mythic perspective and conveyed that in his songwriting.

Now compare that to the magician who does a generic performance of Stigmata with a bland personality and unoriginal presentation.

"Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character."
-Winston Wolf, Pulp Fiction

I also believe that anyone who thinks magic shouldn't be commercial due to its inherent secrecy is part of the problem. I think that's a laughable argument.

Agreed. Anyone making the argument should be caned.

That's what magic doesnt has, Yeah, we can come up with sleights, routines etc but it doesnt mean anything to us, if we adjust patter, it could mean something to them, but from the beggining, the routine or patter never meaned anything to us, we just created, perfected it and perform it, but it doesnt has anything personal that can connect with us, anyone can do the same patter in a trick or routine, but not everyone can sing a song with the same feeling that the original composer, because the composer feels what he writes.

I do believe you've touched on a facet of the problem. There's no air of authenticity to what we do.

The opposite side of the coin is when magicians start scripting about things that interest them and not the audience. In their arrogance, they have no idea how to make it interesting. I've met people who can tell stories of historical politics in South Asia and make it sound interesting. I've met very few magicians who can do the same.

 

[romeo sierra]

People don't identify with magic... it's as simple as that. Maybe it's because we as performers have not given spectators that opportunity. People identify with music because it speaks of past experience that people can relate to. Films have characters that can sometimes be very similar to the audiences watching. People enjoy identifying with something to get that personal connection.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wanted someone to go in that direction. Now is it possible to create magic that people can relate to? I'm not just talking about modifying a script to an effect to force some sort of trivial relationship-- I'm talking about actually creating something in magic strong enough to build upon people's emotions?

This is what I wanted to come out. Magic is essentially just a series of puzzles. For many people, that's a difficult thing to come to terms with because puzzles aren't viewed as artistic or credible. Puzzles are our tools-- they're our material. I think we need to improve the quality of what we use to reach out to a broader audience.

I think there are countless lessons in other performance arts that we can take away to improve magic as a whole. To MAKE it worthwhile. To MAKE it interesting. Imagine watching a weekly magic-related television show that continued to amaze people and make them want more with the same addiction as any primetime sitcom. The awkward reality-tv shows failed for good reason: they focused on stereotypical plots in magic. Even MindFreak-- although Criss Angel received mild success with his show, he's still doing the same things over and over and over again that people have seen since magic was first brought to the forefront. It makes him laughable.

So how can we breathe new life into magic? I actually think there are artists who've succeeded in doing so... but I'm interested in seeing some solid creative thought first.

RS.

 

[romeo sierra]

No they aren't. Magic isn't like theater. It is theater. And we need to treat it as such if we want to advance.

Can magic have a larger impact on people? Yes. Does it often? No.

This is a large reason that I study Jungian psychology and the works of Joseph Campbell. Paul Harris writes in great detail about the primal appeal of magic, but the practical means for getting there are few and far between. It's also why I so heavily study other art forms, which, let's face it, it seems many magicians are loathe to do.



The answer is to stop and consider why.

From the magic side, I look to Robert-Houdin, Houdini, and David Blaine. All of these men made magic acceptable for everybody. Robert-Houdin in particular may be quoted a lot on one line, but what people so often forget is that this man was so popular and his performance so great, that his government asked him to intervene in a diplomatic envoy to avert a god damn war!

What were these men doing that we have yet to do?

Now let's consider what the other art forms are doing that we're not? Allow me to reference a personal example.

One of my all-time favorite musicians is Ronnie James Dio. Ronnie was the archetypal classic rock/metal vocalist, a little guy with a huge voice and a philosophy of rock as a way of life. His breakthrough came in Rainbow before he joined Black Sabbath for two albums and then went solo. His debut solo album, Holy Diver was so influential it almost single-handedly created an entire subgenre of metal: power metal. Dio was obsessed with mysticism, the occult, and a portrayal of the struggle of good versus evil. He viewed everything in life through a mythic perspective and conveyed that in his songwriting.

Now compare that to the magician who does a generic performance of Stigmata with a bland personality and unoriginal presentation.

"Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character."
-Winston Wolf, Pulp Fiction



Agreed. Anyone making the argument should be caned.



I do believe you've touched on a facet of the problem. There's no air of authenticity to what we do.

The opposite side of the coin is when magicians start scripting about things that interest them and not the audience. In their arrogance, they have no idea how to make it interesting. I've met people who can tell stories of historical politics in South Asia and make it sound interesting. I've met very few magicians who can do the same.

Effing good. I want people to talk theories first. I want them to put a lot of thought into the quality of magic they're personally doing. Once enough people do that kind of serious reflection, I'd like to touch upon practical steps that everyone can actually follow to improve not only what they do-- but hopefully the overall appreciation for magic as a whole. It's a tall order, but I think it's one worth attacking at this level.

RS.

 

[Steerpike]

So how can we breathe new life into magic? I actually think there are artists who've succeeded in doing so... but I'm interested in seeing some solid creative thought first.

Well, let's take this in baby steps. The first phase is to actually educate the new generation of magicians in the art world itself.

Whether old school or new school, magicians hate, hate, hate being told that their craft is analogous to anything. Hence the anti-mainstream-because-it's-secret argument you mentioned.

You probably recall my "You are not an artist!" thread in which I asserted that you have to actually act artistic to be an artist, and almost all of the counterarguments against me were insistent that because magic is an art, they get to be called artists. They believe they are entitled to that label even though they haven't done a damn thing to earn it.

To become an artist requires an appreciation for art in general. I love power metal because it's epic and mythic. And though the genre is not to everybody's tastes, those are ideas we can connect with on a very profound level as anyone who has read Joseph Campbell can tell you. I love horror movies because they help me achieve a greater understanding of what Carl Jung called my Shadow self.

Magicians need to drop this narcissistic assertion that they are artists who are in a league all their own far removed from the actual artistic community.

Once enough people do that, I'd like to talk practical steps that everyone can actually follow to improve not only what they do-- but hopefully the overall appreciation for magic as a whole. It's a tall order, but I think it's one worth attacking at this level.

Well to do that, you need to teach people how to be interesting. Not easy.

A common mistake I see in a lot of would-be artists is that they lock themselves away to practice technique, but they never let anything happen to them. The only way to be a great artist is to have an interesting life.

So to encourage a new generation of magicians to become actual artists and break magic out of its stagnation, we must convince them to affect a complete lifestyle change.

 

[romeo sierra]

Steerpike--

While valid, I think your points of view do digress a bit from my intentions. I don't want to talk about the character of an artist-- I want to talk about the actual tools of the craft. I read that entire thread from a few months back and I admired what you had to argue... but I think it's off track from what I want to pursue.

In any case-- I recommend anyone and everyone to check it out. I think that thread could only improve how people will participate in this discussion.

What I want to focus on is the quality of the actual magic we do. How to create, change, and filter our material to better relate to a spectator. In order to do that, we need to see what's wrong with the magic we're performing. While presentation is most important and often a faltering aspect of what we do, I also think there's a lack of quality in the material by itself. That's what I'd like to discuss.

RS.

 

[Steerpike]

What I want to focus on is the quality of the actual magic we do. How to create, change, and filter our material to better relate to a spectator. In order to do that, we need to see what's wrong with the magic we're performing. While presentation is most important and often a faltering aspect of what we do, I also think there's a lack of quality in the material by itself. That's what I'd like to discuss.

Fair enough.

I'm going to go ahead and ruin something everybody here seems to love, so here's an open challenge to all the card enthusiasts reading this. Take Portal. Explain to me why I should give a **** about that card trick.

After you're done failing at that, tell me why I should do Portal instead of my routine with a pendulum and a world map involving locations relevant to the participant.

This is the inherent problem I find with a lot of material. There is no real motivation or appeal. It's simply jerking off. And in that way magic is a bit like the work of guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen.

 

[Sean_Raf]

I also believe that anyone who thinks magic shouldn't be commercial due to its inherent secrecy is part of the problem. I think that's a laughable argument.

RS.

Agreed. Anyone making the argument should be caned.

That's cool, but why is it a laughable argument? Why should they be caned? Maybe I'm an idiot for not seeing the reason immediately, but I think if I'm not seeing it, I can't be the only one; I just wanna learn as much as I can. Thanks.

~~~~~~

Moving on to the original point, making emotion. Steerpike has said it time and time again, and no-one has seemed to be able to answer him rightly. What's in it for me? Like his last post suggested, Portal, why the hell should he care? Rightly so, granted it's a nice piece of eye candy, there's things moving, spinning and poppin' all over the place, but... what's the point, how does that evoke care about the effect?

As a games programmer student and someone interested in games, if I were to perform that to my peers on the course, I could relate that effect to the game Portal... but other than that... nothing, it's meaningless.

I think, for us to progress and make our magic connect with the spectators, I think we're on the right tracks about thinking of what a spectator would want to see in magic. BUT I would say at the moment whilst we might be trying I think that too often we're putting ourselves in a magician-spectator position, rather than a layperson-spectator position. In other words, we're imagining ourselves in an audience and thinking "What magic would I like to see, oh that would be a cool effect and presentation!". All very well and fine except you're still only watching the effect, not the performance as a whole itself... I'm not the best with words but I hope someone is getting the gist of what I'm saying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another point I'd like to make whilst my thinking cap is roughly in the upright position is being okay with being wrong. Do I believe in the words I've spoken thus far at present, you bet I do (whether I conveyed my point is another matter), does that mean I'm right, balls no; in fact I'd wager Steerpike will show me why my points are off-track, and I hope he does, I'm here to learn as much as I can from those more experienced than I, maybe then I can help others in the future.

It would've been all to easy for me to say "Yeah, I agree with Steer and Romeo, they know what they're talking about" and why not? That's probably the most acceptable thing to do. But would I have learned anything, would I have thought about it at all? Probably not.

I see it all too often in the media section and I hate it with all of my tainted soul. People commenting on videos saying "Yeah it's alright, not a magician fooler though 3/5" to those videos which no matter how well performed just don't fool us."[/I]. Those videos that do fool them on the other hand "omfg you totally got me 5 stars dawg"... And yet those same people on the forums proclaim of how it's not about fooling, but about entertaining the spectator... Why because they think that's the right thing to think, they say whatever is the right answer, regardless of whether they truly believe what they are saying; After all, who wants to be wrong?

Well I do, I want to be wrong, because it's the only way someone will spot that I'm wrong and put me on the path to seeing why I was wrong; A path I much prefer to the one that's always being ignorantly right.

Apologies to Romeo for going slightly off track there, but it was at the front of my head and I felt I needed to make a point out of it.

Look forward to someone's response to this

- Sean

 

[Maze]

Without reading the entire thread, and just by the first post, the key-word is 'performance arts'.

By which I mean, does one really take their magic to a level of an art? is magic even an art? or just a performance of the super-natural? or mereley a demonstration of it...

 

[Steerpike]

That's cool, but why is it a laughable argument? Why should they be caned? Maybe I'm an idiot for not seeing the reason immediately, but I think if I'm not seeing it, I can't be the only one; I just wanna learn as much as I can. Thanks.

To use an old analogy of mine, there's a phenomenon I like to call kvlt kiddie syndrome.

It comes from a metalhead inside joke. The sub-genre of black metal is the most virulently anti-mainstream genre of all time. Some of these bands even do away with key and tempo in an effort to be more avant garde. More than a few are borderline unlistenable because the music is so punishing, discordant, and noisy.

This philosophy translates to how they do business as well. A few years back, a bunch of black metal bands wanted their profiles removed from a wiki called Metal Archives because being on the internet was too mainstream and being known by too many people hurt their credibility. The admins laughed at them, refused, and called them kvlt kiddies off of the recurring joke of how metalheads use the idiom kvlt (cult) in a tongue-in-cheek way of describing something they like, usually by way of it being brutal or obscure.

Unfortunately, this ethos means that the black metal scene is largely stagnant and very little new blood is being rotated in. Because of the emphasis on emulating previous bands such as Bathory, Mayhem, Gorgoroth, Darkthrone, Burzum, and Immortal, those who try something innovative or different such as Melechesh or Dimmu Borgir or Emperor (all awesome by the way) are looked down upon as not being true black metal.

The attitude of wanting to keep something obscure to preserve its integrity only serves to suffocate it.

Moving on to the original point, making emotion. Steerpike has said it time and time again, and no-one has seemed to be able to answer him rightly. What's in it for me?

So far, I've gotten a couple people who gave decent answers. Not perfect, but they're on the right track.

I think, for us to progress and make our magic connect with the spectators, I think we're on the right tracks about thinking of what a spectator would want to see in magic. BUT I would say at the moment whilst we might be trying I think that too often we're putting ourselves in a magician-spectator position, rather than a layperson-spectator position. In other words, we're imagining ourselves in an audience and thinking "What magic would I like to see, oh that would be a cool effect and presentation!". All very well and fine except you're still only watching the effect, not the performance as a whole itself... I'm not the best with words but I hope someone is getting the gist of what I'm saying.

Indeed, that is a large problem with magic. The drawback to being in a performing art means you have to have enough of an ego to enjoy being in front of people. And from there, it's very easy for it to get out of control. From one who knows.

The reason I keep asking, "What's in it for me?" is because it's a slap in the face to get people to step outside of their own minds for a moment. I have a mentor whom I ask for advice whenever possible because I value his opinion and when it comes to the business side of magic, he's always right. His first questions when I talk about a new show are always about who the audience is and what they get out of it.

 

[Randy]

Well it's true and most performers don't say that because it's easier to just say entertainment. Rather than something a long the lines of "A Journey of self Discovery"

 

[Mental-State]

one problem is that magic isnt assessable as the rest. if i want to listen to music i can just pick up my mp3 and event if people can't go out and see plays or watch live music u dont need to.

with all the special effects today, magic on a screen isnt good enough and people will always be skeptical with magic on a screen, they will have to trust the audience that is watching and not there own eyes.

also i think it is the trick aspect. when err say johnny depp calls himself jack sparrow he doesnt get called a lair, they say he is acting. people dont see past the word trick and see it as a performance but as someone showing off what he can do.

thats why i dont like to say to the audience that it is magic or it is a trick.

something quick before I go to sleep.


Yeah, we can come up with sleights, routines etc but it doesnt mean anything to us, if we adjust patter, it could mean something to them, but from the beggining, the routine or patter never meaned anything to us, we just created, perfected it and perform it, but it doesnt has anything personal that can connect with us, anyone can do the same patter in a trick or routine, but not everyone can sing a song with the same feeling that the original composer, because the composer feels what he writes.

dude ur right, but u can change the patter to the person are performing for, i have done it a few times and it works well, they put 100% of them selfs in the effect of the magic

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wanted someone to go in that direction. Now is it possible to create magic that people can relate to? I'm not just talking about modifying a script to an effect to force some sort of trivial relationship-- I'm talking about actually creating something in magic strong enough to build upon people's emotions?

i like to do time travel effects because i like stuff like physics. thats what i like to do. most people do the effect they like to do, not what the audience wants to see. im not saying that its wrong to have fav effects or u wouldnt have ur own style and that would be stupid but, i dont know a lot of people who like physics. find out a little about them, u can even do it without asking probing questions, put them in the middle of the effect. make a story involving them or something. im gonna have put more deep thought in this really

 

[Dima]

Well it's true and most performers don't say that because it's easier to just say entertainment. Rather than something a long the lines of "A Journey of self Discovery"

Maybe those performers simply do not see magic as "A Journey of self Discovery". I certainly don't. Is it wrong for certain people to view and present magic as a simple piece of entertainment similar to juggling or stand up comedy? Like Shawn Raf, i want to learn.

 

[Randy]

Maybe those performers simply do not see magic as "A Journey of self Discovery". I certainly don't. Is it wrong for certain people to view and present magic as a simple piece of entertainment similar to juggling or stand up comedy? Like Shawn Raf, i want to learn.

No it's not. Tho Steerpike obviously disagrees. I think that magic depending on what you do, can be both entertainment and also some sort of learning experience for the audience. With card magic it's a bit harder to do. But with Mentalisim you could essentially do that.

 

[Steerpike]

No it's not. Tho Steerpike obviously disagrees.

This is like the third time this week you have attempted to speak for me.

If you want to pursue magic as entertainment the same way that you would play guitar just to whip it out at a party, fine. But understand that this thread is not targeted at you. It is my decision to pursue magic as art and theater. If you do not wish to follow that path, I fail to see why I should make room at the table for you in a discussion that has bugger all to do with you.