Should Magic be Political?

[Ben Long]

OK, here's a question. Should magic be used to prove a point or to raise questions about current events, or should magic stick to the idea of magic for magic's sake?

There seem to be two views that I've observed. There's the Paul Harris art of astonishment view, that seems to me to be about the beauty of illusion and the emotional effect it has on people. Then we've got the Penn and Teller approach in which magic is used to raise questions about the world we live in and make spectators question themselves.

I'm not saying that one is right and one is wrong--quite the opposite. They both are solid ideologies about the art. It's an issue I've seen in other art forms, music especially. It's the improvisational jazz school versus the political punk movement; abstract versus pop art.

Is magic more cultural or more transcendent? Should it be one or the other? Is it both? Neither?

This is something that I've been thinking about for a while. Magic obviously has a lot of power to affect people. Should it be used simply as-is, or should it be used as a tool?

I'm not sure for myself yet, but I would love to hear others' opinions.

 

[Brad Henderson]

What if the question were about music, film, drama, or the visual arts? Should magic's scope be any different from theirs?

Thoughts?

Brad Henderson

 

[iwannayoyo]

I think it should be up to the performer. People should not go to a magic performance thinking that they will come out a different person. They should have no idea what to expect when they walk through the front doors. If you are a type of person who thinks one way, perform that way, that's just my two cents.

 

[Ben Long]

What if the question were about music, film, drama, or the visual arts? Should magic's scope be any different from theirs?

Thoughts?

Brad Henderson

I think that visual art and music are different enough from magic in terms of presentation that we can just focus on film and drama. Especially with film, there is an inherent political base that it is built off of, whereas drama tends to lean more towards the actor and becoming something different.

I think that for any magician, there needs to be a decision about which direction he or she will lean. I think that it is difficult to do both. Obviously, there are exceptions, like in Penn and Teller's case, where most of the things they do have some sort of societal commentary or cynicism in place, however, one gets illusions like "Shadows," which is very poetic and decidedly non-political.

As performers, I think that each one of us has a certain values system. I, for instance, like to keep closer to the illusion for the beauty of illusion. I want my audience to really question their own perception, rather than a collective perception of everything else. Of course, there is seepage into the public realm from the personal realm. People will generally question themselves in relationship to their surroundings. Whereas with political magic (we'll just call it that for now), there is a newfound perception of the whole that then focuses in on the individual. So I suppose then that it becomes a choice of direction. Should we go from small to large, or from general to specific?

(I hope that makes at least an ounce of sense).

 

[CoryOOreo]

I think magic is a great way to introduce new ways of thinking, and raise some important questions. It all depends on what you want to acheive with your performance. We can't expect our spectators to actually want to dive into some emotional, and life changing experience every time we perform. It's sort of interesting, considering that other art forms such as film, music, and theatre all seem to have this mutual goal of raising some issue, or making you feel. Maybe magic isn't recognized by the public as an art with this sort of importance... Yet.

 

[MoJoe13]

Should magic be used to prove a point or to raise questions about current events, or should magic stick to the idea of magic for magic's sake?

Yes, and yes.

Magic is a method of entertainment. People don't really want to see the illusions, they want to see the performer. It's up to the performer to decide whether they want to burn an American flag or make an elephant disappear.

Personally, I have a routine based on politics. But I don't perform it too often, because it really takes the right audience. Nevertheless, it's part of my arsenal. Magic can be many things; political, whimsical, psychotic, vaudevillian, whatever. The only thing is should be is magical.

 

[CoryOOreo]

Magic is a method of entertainment. People don't really want to see the illusions, they want to see the performer.

That's an interesting statement. Personally, I would say that people want to see the illusions presented by the performer. It reminds me of the beginning of Darwin Ortiz's book Strong Magic. He makes it clear we should to be able to entertain with our magic alone. That's our first job, presentation is the next.

Anyways, that's off-topic...

 

[Ben Long]

I think it really is largely a question of what we want our audience to take away from the performance. What are we trying to show them?

I also think that it can be a practical issue as well. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is easier to show a simple coins across routine as a simple closeup miracle--something to be appreciated for only what it is. Making one coin jump from one hand to the other probably won't make somebody become a staunch liberal atheist. But burning a flag might. The thing is, though, when Penn and Teller show how they do that particular trick, it's not about the trick anymore. It's really just the message. I feel that in some way, it becomes less magic and more politic.

Magic first and foremost--just as a facet of the art form--brings up questions about the physical world; it creates ambiguities about how one physically lives his or her life, even if it's just a coins across routine. Politics is abstract. It's intangible. It seems to me that magic is a balancing act about, as I stated earlier, how you want the spectator to view you when all is said and done.

It's a difficult question. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around it.

 

[CoryOOreo]

Would magic presented with a philosophical message be any different than magic presented with a political message? It's almost as if any sort of message behind the magic changes the way your spectator percieves the actual effect in it's entirety. That can be a bad thing, or a good thing.... But it's still kind of vague, because you never know if the spectator will "get it."

If anyone is interested, I did post a video on my YouTube channel of a routine presented with a political message called "You Can't Fight City Hall." The link to my channel is in my signature...

 

[Ben Long]

Another thing to consider is how magic is different from other art forms. I mean, a signature concept in dance is movement as self expression; showing one's emotions using the body. A big part of one school of visual art is transcendence of genre and meaning.

This actually just made me think of a very political presentation for some mentalism effect. Talk about government spies and the destruction of privacy, and then "steal" someone's thought. (sorry, kind of a non sequitor, but still slightly relevant).

The fact is, magic is different. Should we therefore treat it differently in terms of what we use it for? Should we even "use" it?

 

[Steerpike]

I don't believe magic to be different enough to warrant being beholden to an entirely separate set of rules. I've been involved with different arts for as long as I can remember, and I hang out with artistic people. We're really not all that different when you get right down to it.

There's nothing wrong with doing something purely for entertainment. But to be truly artistic, you have to say something.

This gets to the heart of the issue. It doesn't matter if your routine is deeply personal and focuses on the self or it it's more topical and turns outward rather than inward. As long as you have something to say.

As a tangent, you mention the idea of mentalism with government spying. Look up Docc Hilford's Dark Cloak booklet. I used a similar idea for a Pre-Paid Legal speaking engagement.

 

[MoJoe13]

There's nothing wrong with doing something purely for entertainment. But to be truly artistic, you have to say something.

I don't know if I agree. Does every trick have to have a larger point to be artistic? Can't a trick be a trick? I wowed the heck out of someone this weekend with a slop shuffle effect. What about flourishers? Their art is based entirely on the visual.

 

[Ben Long]

But that's just the thing. What if I don't want to say something? Can't magic exists purely as a transcendent (boy I've used that word a lot) entity. Can't it just be? If you are unaware of this concept, it is everywhere, in every art form. Since when did everything need to have a purpose?

Self-expression is overrated.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't know if I agree. Does every trick have to have a larger point to be artistic? Can't a trick be a trick? I wowed the heck out of someone this weekend with a slop shuffle effect. What about flourishers? Their art is based entirely on the visual.

Art at it's base either has an underlying message or at the least seeks to evoke an emotional response. Who says flourishers can't evoke emotions?

Either way, you're trying to express something.

What if I don't want to say something?

Then don't. I'm not twisting your arm.

Can't magic exists purely as a transcendent (boy I've used that word a lot) entity. Can't it just be?

I call that masturbation. No shame unless you get caught.

If you are unaware of this concept, it is everywhere, in every art form.

Examples?

 

[MoJoe13]

Art at its base either has an underlying message or at the least seeks to evoke an emotional response. Who says flourishers can't evoke emotions?

I'll buy that.

We were on the verge of getting into the intellectual wankfest of asking "what is art." Yours is a good enough definition. In fact, that may touch on the problem most beginning magicians have: When we start out, it's tempting to use magic to say, "Look what I can do." At that point, we're showing off, not performing.

 

[Ben Long]

Alright. How about Jackson Pollock? He's said himself that he doesn't want anyone to take his art for anything other than what it is.

Art at it's base either has an underlying message or at the least seeks to evoke an emotional response.

Not true in the least bit. Look at medieval paintings, cave paintings, Greek pottery...they serve an entirely different purpose, but are still art. There's not necessarily an internal emotional message.

But like MoJoe said, this isn't about defining art.

That is not possible to do.

But getting back on topic...

 

[CoryOOreo]

Reading this topic, I'm starting to recognize the similarities between magic and life. We're asking ourselves if magic should have some sort of deeper meaning, or if it can just simply exist. Doesn't the same thing apply to life? Existentialism is the idea that we all just exist, and we need to create meaning and essence in our lives. Maybe we should take that Existential approach to magic.

 

[Ben Long]

Reading this topic, I'm starting to recognize the similarities between magic and life. We're asking ourselves if magic should have some sort of deeper meaning, or if it can just simply exist. Doesn't the same thing apply to life? Existentialism is the idea that we all just exist, and we need to create meaning and essence in our lives. Maybe we should take that Existential approach to magic.

Oh, jeez. What have I done?

I'm just going to leave this alone now.

I've got an appointment with Godot I have to make...

 

[CoryOOreo]

Oh, jeez. What have I done?

I'm just going to leave this alone now.

I've got an appointment with Godot I have to make...

I don't get it.

 

[Brad Henderson]

In the 1800's there were two primary schools of thought regarding music.
Brahms advocated "Absolute Music." This was music for it's own sake. No meaning, no story, just the sheer beauty of sound. Wagner and Strauss advocated programmatic music. This was music orchestrated - no pun intended - around an extra-musical source, a story or idea.

Was one art and the other not?

According to whom must art "say something?" The notion of "saying something" with art is a fairly new concept, some might argue that it is a post-Enlightenment concept.

So, to proclaim as some have done that art must "say something" is an inaccurate view of the history or philosophy of art. I hate to always be the one correcting these kinds of posts, but we cannot have a valid discussion if our points are based on a misunderstanding of history.

If you can, read Bob Neale's wonderful Essay called The Many Magics which can be found in Magic and Meaning. He talks about different incarnations in magic and their goals. In it, he discusses magic for it's own sake. It is just as valid an approach as any other. But not the only valid approach!

Brad Henderson