I believe he just does not acknowledge the people he agrees with because he has no need to.
You are not an artist!
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
I believe he just does not acknowledge the people he agrees with because he has no need to.
I would! (emphasis mine) But I listen to metal and have headbanging contests with friends, so take that for what it is.
Does it matter?
I said that because with some people, there's just no point to miss.
No, I don't actually. If I'm reading you wrong, please tell me because that question was serious.
I basically agree with you that many people are at different stages in the magic "artist" field. Some are minor artists while others are exceptional artists.
Did anyone read my really long post on page 14? (Tear Tear)
...I thought it was decent
I read it. You obviously have a certain intelligence a lot of others are lacking, and I appreciate that this is a subject that you've given a lot of thought. Initially, there are somethings I disagree with, but I'm mulling it over because you put enough effort and thought into that that it's worth more than just another one-liner.
I think this thread has gone from a creative discussion to a thread full of people trying to find a weak point in Steerpike's argumentative skills.
In the words of Ronald Reagan "Ahhh shut up"
You are showing your true colors Steerpike and its not pretty. You only pick out certain points in posts ones that you can comment back to. This is why T11 should have an ostracism system like they did in ancient Athens. I will no longer try and prove you wrong because that has already been done many times. So I will take my own advice 'Never argue with someone beneath you for instead of brining them up to your level they will bring you down to theirs.' Quit while you are ahead Steerpike see you next year.
-Michael
Ha ha thank you for reading it. I would love to hear what you disagree with considering you as well put out great ideas and thoughts. Basically I want you to disagree with me because I am still thinking this whole thing through and would love to hear other ideas! I love debates!
Last edited by a moderator:
Steerpike,
WOuld you consider someone who has been in musical theatre (sing, dance, act) 11 years, a juggler for 2 years, magician for 10 years, and still activly performing in one or all of these categories an artist of performance?
If you do then, yes I would consider myself an artist.
Ps,
I do agree with many of your points.
WOuld you consider someone who has been in musical theatre (sing, dance, act) 11 years, a juggler for 2 years, magician for 10 years, and still activly performing in one or all of these categories an artist of performance?
If you do then, yes I would consider myself an artist.
Ps,
I do agree with many of your points.
How's that different from any other time?
I think we've all known about my black and twisted soul for some time now.
Why should I respond to something that I have nothing about which to say? If I did that, I'd be some insipid me-too-er on AOL.
Ostracism only applied to elected officials. I'm not an elected official. I'm just a random schmuck who blew some sand up your dress.
D
Deleted member 2755
Guest
It seems this thread is
Am I the only one who is agreeing with Steerpike here?
-Doug
Steerpike V.S. The Theory 11 Forum
Am I the only one who is agreeing with Steerpike here?
-Doug
In the words of Ronald Reagan "Ahhh shut up"
You are showing your true colors Steerpike and its not pretty. You only pick out certain points in posts ones that you can comment back to. This is why T11 should have an ostracism system like they did in ancient Athens. I will no longer try and prove you wrong because that has already been done many times. Quit while you are ahead see you next year.
-Michael
It seems this thread is
Steerpike V.S. The Theory 11 Forum
Am I the only one who is agreeing with Steerpike here?
-Doug
Haha, I was thinking the same thing.
I am too, but I'm getting nasty PMs because of it
..wait..
I think...
Ok..No it doesnt matter.Whether we call ourselves artists or not it doesnt matter because no one gives a rats ass.
Certainly not our audience.
And we are not going to go around like criss angel calling it "my art" while performing are we?
Its just a label..if we know we are artist we shouldnt have to concern ourselves with calling ourselves it.Like i said before this post.
ts just a label.
I see what you are saying but time also doesn't really define if you are an artist or not. Someone could say they were into magic 25 years but not be as dedicated to it as someone that has been into magic for 5 years. Most likely more experience and time will mean more dedication and more reason why you are an artist but I just kind of wanted to toss that out there.
I don't think many people are going to have entertaining presentations with much of anything unless they know something about the subject. Stigmata is pretty hard to convince your friends that you have powers, because they know you don't.
As for people being circus animals. That's pretty much in correct because I doubt anybody here will perform instantly just because somebody said to do so.
As for them mimicking David Blaine or Daniel Madison.. Well that's just what most young kids do when they start magic. You can't tell me that you didn't mimic your favorite bands gestures and styles when you were starting out with music. Most people don't find themselves till later on in life. The best way to do that is go out and perform, find the best influences and then use your favorite aspects of them as you go on. Use your knowledge of whatever presentational style you wand and then simply mold yourself into that persona over the years. With experience.
It seems this thread is
Steerpike V.S. The Theory 11 Forum
Am I the only one who is agreeing with Steerpike here?
-Doug
Not really (answer to your last sentence)...I basically agree.
At the moment, the only thing I really take any issue with is the impression that you only explore the idea of giving joy. I'm not saying that isn't a valid way to go, just that there are other avenues.
Also, Warhol's quote is one I take with a grain of salt, like most of the things he said over his career. Like Marcel DuChamp, Andy was notorious for his off-kilter quotations used to avoid having to be on the nose about his art.
That depends. What are you trying to accomplish?
This is very out of character for me but what the heck, I'm going to throw my hat into the ring. Let me say to being with that I've not managed to read the whole topic but from the looks of things on the last page, nothing much has happened in the last few pages.
There's several fundamental problems with debates like this one right here. One of those problems has to do with definition - without a universally agreed definition of what constitutes an "artist" you're always going to end up going round in circles. Of course this is a big problem, because everyone seems to believe that their own personal definition of "artist" is the most valid, whether its supported by a dictionary definition or by their own experience and self perception.
I would hope to find some support for the notion that art is a subjective experience - put another way art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Someone, somewhere will see art in ANYTHING - which may explain the proliferation of strange, giant bits of metalwork pervading the urban landscape. Art is in some ways defined by its audience and so is by extension independant of what the "artist" thinks about it at all! If this is true then we have to judge "art" by its impact on ourselves or indeed on others. I am forced into admitting that paint splats on a piece of tree bark is art because enough other people see depth in it; I just see paint splats on tree bark.
Be patient, I have a point.
The simplest of tricks performed by the least "artistic" performers can illicit powerful reactions from a lay audience because of the nature of astonishment. When you're on the recieving end of such reactions its tempting to think "hey, I'm pretty good at this...I know stuff other people don't know...they're going crazy for this..." and when the question comes up "am I an artist?" its easy to justify putting a big fat tick in the yes column. And hey, in the eyes of that uninformed group of spectators, guess what? They ARE an "artist". But consider the equivalent standard in, for example, music - pretty much banging out a scale without hitting any bum notes. The same audience would almost certainly not consider that "art", or the unfortunate music student an "artist".
I don't believe magic can be measured by the same yardstick other performance arts are measured by, as the above example hopefully demonstrates. Possibly this is because magic is still pretty much a little-experienced artform for most people, so they have no basis for comparison. This would lead us to conclude that at this stage in its development, magic's "artists" have to be defined by the students of magic itself, who DO have a basis for comparison. So the question becomes how do magicians define "artistry"? There is of course creativity - coming up with original tricks, new sleights or concepts. Also, and equally valid in my opinion, is the performance of magic - handling an audience, entertaining them, executing tricks well, structuring an act. I would also be inclined to add that the above qualities must be executed CONSISTENTLY - no "one hit wonders".
I consider myself an artist, and here's why. I've performed professionally now for two years and consistently satisfied my audiences, being rebooked by the same companies several times. I create and perform my own material, some of which has recieved positive feedback from other professional, knowledgeable magicians who have themselves had work published, and enthusiastically received by the magic community. I am in the process of organising my first collection of magic which may eventually one day see publication. I take passion and pride in my work. The burden of proof falls of course to myself, but you'll have to wait a while before that materialises!
Cheers,
David.
There's several fundamental problems with debates like this one right here. One of those problems has to do with definition - without a universally agreed definition of what constitutes an "artist" you're always going to end up going round in circles. Of course this is a big problem, because everyone seems to believe that their own personal definition of "artist" is the most valid, whether its supported by a dictionary definition or by their own experience and self perception.
I would hope to find some support for the notion that art is a subjective experience - put another way art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Someone, somewhere will see art in ANYTHING - which may explain the proliferation of strange, giant bits of metalwork pervading the urban landscape. Art is in some ways defined by its audience and so is by extension independant of what the "artist" thinks about it at all! If this is true then we have to judge "art" by its impact on ourselves or indeed on others. I am forced into admitting that paint splats on a piece of tree bark is art because enough other people see depth in it; I just see paint splats on tree bark.
Be patient, I have a point.
The simplest of tricks performed by the least "artistic" performers can illicit powerful reactions from a lay audience because of the nature of astonishment. When you're on the recieving end of such reactions its tempting to think "hey, I'm pretty good at this...I know stuff other people don't know...they're going crazy for this..." and when the question comes up "am I an artist?" its easy to justify putting a big fat tick in the yes column. And hey, in the eyes of that uninformed group of spectators, guess what? They ARE an "artist". But consider the equivalent standard in, for example, music - pretty much banging out a scale without hitting any bum notes. The same audience would almost certainly not consider that "art", or the unfortunate music student an "artist".
I don't believe magic can be measured by the same yardstick other performance arts are measured by, as the above example hopefully demonstrates. Possibly this is because magic is still pretty much a little-experienced artform for most people, so they have no basis for comparison. This would lead us to conclude that at this stage in its development, magic's "artists" have to be defined by the students of magic itself, who DO have a basis for comparison. So the question becomes how do magicians define "artistry"? There is of course creativity - coming up with original tricks, new sleights or concepts. Also, and equally valid in my opinion, is the performance of magic - handling an audience, entertaining them, executing tricks well, structuring an act. I would also be inclined to add that the above qualities must be executed CONSISTENTLY - no "one hit wonders".
I consider myself an artist, and here's why. I've performed professionally now for two years and consistently satisfied my audiences, being rebooked by the same companies several times. I create and perform my own material, some of which has recieved positive feedback from other professional, knowledgeable magicians who have themselves had work published, and enthusiastically received by the magic community. I am in the process of organising my first collection of magic which may eventually one day see publication. I take passion and pride in my work. The burden of proof falls of course to myself, but you'll have to wait a while before that materialises!
Cheers,
David.
1. You have nothing to say because you are wrong and can't smooth talk your way out of it.
2. Ostracism applied to anyone inside the city walls.
-Michael