Should Magic be Political?

[Ben Long]

I don't get it.

Samuel Beckett's existential play, "Waiting for Godot." Check it out.

There is no right or wrong approach (unless it involves stabbing your spectator; artistic as that may be, it's just not cool).

Really what I'm wondering is if magic should be used as a means to an end. Not so much the message, but how it is used. Is it shown as an art or as propaganda?

What are the ramifications of using it for political means? Does it take away from the beauty of it?

I'd love to hear some examples...

 

[Steerpike]

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.

Ah, but Jackson Pollock's abstract expressionist period was a statement that the creation process was the art, and not the finished product.

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.

Paintings in the Gothic period typically had religious significance. They were an expression of faith.

Cave paintings, as a professor of mine believes, were man's first recorded attempts at trying to achieve a level of understanding of their world.

Greek pottery was used as a form of storytelling in a manner similar to the Gothic paintings.

There is an underlying expression of a message or it sought to evoke emotional reactions from the viewer.

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?

In my mind, the "sheer beauty of sound" is still a statement. And besides that, Brahms' music still evoked emotion.

Really what I'm wondering is if magic should be used as a means to an end. Not so much the message, but how it is used. Is it shown as an art or as propaganda?

What are the ramifications of using it for political means? Does it take away from the beauty of it?

I'd love to hear some examples...

It depends entirely on the performer.

Have you ever seen Rick Maue perform Fate? There's an overall skeptical tone, and at a time when I saw him perform it, part of the routine involved the audience placing black poker chips by folded up cards they thought had lies written on them. One of the ones with a black chip said, "The earth is 6,000 years old." The reaction was rather muted, but Rick just grinned and said, "You picked it, not me."

I thought it was hilarious, though a couple people didn't seem to think so. Which brings up the issue of whether you can please everybody, but that's another discussion.

On the opposite side of the coin, I've never heard any magician besides Rick, Penn and Teller, and other open skeptics question gospel magic.

 

[Brad Henderson]

Paintings in the Gothic period typically had religious significance. They were an expression of faith.

But were they expressions of art? Or were they a job? Remember, early church and court musicians such as Bach were essentially contract employees. There is no evidence that they thought of what they did as art. They wrote music because they were paid to. Beethoven was considered to be the first who really thought of his product as an artistic endeavor. (The movie Amadeus, not withstanding.)

Greek pottery was used as a form of storytelling in a manner similar to the Gothic paintings.
There is an underlying expression of a message or it sought to evoke emotional reactions from the viewer.

Newspapers are a form of storytelling too. Op Ed pieces intend to evoke an emaotional response. Are they, too, art?

In my mind, the "sheer beauty of sound" is still a statement.

They were not writing with the intent to show the world that the sheer beauty of sound was "anything." They wrote music. You might want to read up on this a bit before jumping in.

And besides that, Brahms' music still evoked emotion.

So does a sunset. Is the sunset art?


It is dangerous to over simplify the nature of art or the philosophy of aesthetics (as some have done here.) To attribute meaning to someone's work when there is none is arrogance beyond belief. While artists such as John Cage have taken clever stances like "I have nothing to say and I am saying it," to apply that paradigm backwards in time to a place where "artists" simply did not operate under those conditions is wrong.

Likewise, to insist that art must have a "meaning" belies a misunderstanding of both the history and dynamics of art. If something has a "meaning" and our goal is to communicate that, then it is counter productive and wasteful to hide it in art. Art then (as Langer and others have suggested) must exist for another reason than "communication."

I know it seems like I am always correcting Steer, and I hope he does not take it personally. However, my goal is to ensure that the basic facts being discussed here are accurate. As they stand, they are not.

Hoping this helps contribute to the discussion and helps others come to a better understanding of what they want to believe.

Brad

 

[CoryOOreo]

Samuel Beckett's existential play, "Waiting for Godot." Check it out.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

What are the ramifications of using it for political means? Does it take away from the beauty of it?

Well, the obvious answer to this would be controversy. People aren't always going to understand or necessarily agree with what you have to say. In a sense, this also takes away from the pure beauty of magic. For example, let's say you talk a beautiful magic effect, something that requires no extra entertainment - such as Paul Harris' Earth Shoes - and dress it up with some deeper meaning/message. In a sense, this would distract the spectator from the actual simplicity and beauty of the effect and force them to think of why you did it, not how you did it. You want your spectator to search their mind for possible explanations, because during that moment is when they feel wonder.

 

[Steerpike]

It is dangerous to over simplify the nature of art or the philosophy of aesthetics (as some have done here.) To attribute meaning to someone's work when there is none is arrogance beyond belief. While artists such as John Cage have taken clever stances like "I have nothing to say and I am saying it," to apply that paradigm backwards in time to a place where "artists" simply did not operate under those conditions is wrong.

Likewise, to insist that art must have a "meaning" belies a misunderstanding of both the history and dynamics of art. If something has a "meaning" and our goal is to communicate that, then it is counter productive and wasteful to hide it in art. Art then (as Langer and others have suggested) must exist for another reason than "communication."

Perhaps by nature I just read too much into things.

 

[CoryOOreo]

I wanted to add on to my last post...

If our spectator's are searching for the why behind the magic, the only emotion it will create is confusion. Remember... "Confusion isn't magic." If our spectator is searching for the how behind the magic, the emotion that it will create is wonder... That's what we want.

 

[Brad Henderson]

If all they care about is the 'how' you are merely doing tricks.

If you are performing magic, the "why" will not be asked, it will be felt.

Brad

 

[Ben Long]

If all they care about is the 'how' you are merely doing tricks.

If you are performing magic, the "why" will not be asked, it will be felt.

Brad

Interesting point. In our case, politics becomes an implication, rather than a statement. The "message" exists as subtext to the magnitude of the effect. Perhaps a good example of this is mentalism. There's the, "wow that's amazing" factor, but then there's always that eerie feeing you leave your spectator with that they may in some way have just been violated. Their thought are no longer their own. That, of course, begs the larger question, is nothing private anymore?

So can an effect be more powerful if it has these underlying elements?

Perhaps it's better to imply an idea than to force it upon a spectator. That's easier said than done, though...

What do you think?

 

[youngd94]

I think that magic is just like every other art... its created to amaze... i look at the 16th chapel and get a similar feeling as when i see a magic trick, Wow, thats amazing, how is it possible that this is done... aside from that

i think that magic can and should be used for both... I do think that magic is (like all other arts) a beautiful thing and that peoples natural state of mind is astonishment... and people should also question what is and isn't possible, what can and can't be achieved... and i think both are great points

 

[Ben Long]

I think that magic is just like every other art... its created to amaze... i look at the 16th chapel and get a similar feeling as when i see a magic trick, Wow, thats amazing, how is it possible that this is done... aside from that

i think that magic can and should be used for both... I do think that magic is (like all other arts) a beautiful thing and that peoples natural state of mind is astonishment... and people should also question what is and isn't possible, what can and can't be achieved... and i think both are great points

I believe that's "Sistine."

 

[youngd94]

I believe that's "Sistine."

oh my god... bleh... right

either way i stick by my point