Painter?

[Andy.Boss.Glass]

i was reading in the books of wonder just now and i came up with a quote which will hopefully give you a little food for thought.


"I enjoy reading books of tricks, but never with the intend of finding new material to perform. I see these such books as sources of knowledge, and occasionally even inspiration, Sometimes i look for the inherent structures beneath the tricks; sometimes i just read trick descriptions for the pure joy of it. My approach is like a painter taking pleasure in a book of art. i enjoy learning what my colleagues are doing. Maybe i can learn from this, gain new insightsm inspiration to strive for higher magic. But it would seem passing strange to our painter for him to look in art books for paintings to copy. Can you imagine: 'I'm a real painter. I paint what others have painted before me.' Or 'Sure, I do copies. But, hey, I found the orignals in the art book. For what other reasons would my colleagues publish their work if not to teach me how to paint their paintings?' Yes, you can look at it that way, even make a defense of a sort of practice- but what poverty!"



This quote made me realize, our artists in magic are those that create their own paintings. This can be style, cuts, editing, effects. But is it saying those who copy effects from books and dvds are not artists? im open for opinion

 

[praetoritevong]

EDIT: I should learn to read properly, sorry guys, ignore this post -.-"

 

[GusEds]

You should read through Steerpike's latest mega-thread. I'm sure the point has been idealized over.

Gustav

 

[Andy.Boss.Glass]

the your not an artist one? yeah i read through that. gret thinking it is

 

[Randomwrath]

I think this depends. If you take an effect and perform it exactly as written, this lacks any skill and is a copy. However by making it your own, adding your own 'style' to the trick and making it your own, it's art. Think of whoever invented the double lift and used it to turn one card into another. Does this mean that everyone that uses a double lift is just copying the original work? No, because it's what they do with the method that makes the art, not the secret itself.

 

[praetoritevong]

I've thought about this a little more, and it seems to me that to compare a magician with a painter is questionable logic. Which is not to say that I disagree with his argument, far from it; however I do have slight qualms with the specific analogy he uses. Some things in art can be compared, yet some elements of what are essentially different forms of art must be respected and thought about as such. Nonetheless I think a great point has been made here.

 

[Mikkyo]

It depends on perspective and perception. If we, in the magic community, are judging whether or not we (or our peers) are 'artists', we base or opinion from our knowledge born from within the field itself.

Laymen on the other hand do not have the luxury of this same knowledge or perspective. They do not know "the greats" of this field, nor are they aware of the mechanics behind the effects.

If we demonstrate an effect to one of our peers within the field of magic exactly as the originator had performed it, then it would be labeled as a 'copy', having 'little originality'.

If, on the other hand, we demonstrate the same effect in exactly the same way to a group of laymen outside the field of magic, who do not know the originator or have never seen the effect or anything like it, it is not a 'copy' in their mind. Having not been exposed to a variety of effects, sleights, and subtleties, they do not see 'unoriginality'. It is original for them.

The whole artist debate is a mute point, based on the perspective of perception and opinion. What art is for one person is not art for another.

Are we performing for laymen or peers? If you are performing for peers, the criteria for what makes you an artist differs greatly from what makes you an artist in the eyes of a laymen.