The dilemma is not only Navy Pier’s, but also mine. I’ve put off writing this for a while, partially to let some of the feelings I had about leaving Navy Pier to dissipate. You should know I believe in Navy Pier or at least the possibility of it. The pier does have some problems. At the moment, it is at best mediocre with some good days. It could be great.
One of the problems is that Navy Pier has an identity problem. There is too little retail to be a mall. There is too little convention space to be a convention hall. There is too little entertainment to be an entertainment venue. The management at the pier doesn’t seem to want to decide what the focus should be, thus it’s individual parts add up to less that the whole. If the pier had focus, such as entertainment, the other parts would be plus extras.
One of the great fears of the management at Navy Pier is being thought of as a carnival. Remember what is at Navy Pier. There is miniature golf, a Ferris wheel, carousel, swing ride, Cirque Shanghai, fireworks, boat rides, and a beer garden. And they don’t want to be thought of as a carnival. They hire (although less and less) jugglers, magicians, contortionists, stilt walkers, and clowns. Not a carnival. They have in-house performers, who perform on stage and walk around. The theme of the in-house performers is a dated pirate motif. Not a carnival.
There are other problems besides perception. The budget for entertainment has been cut repeatedly. Money from that budget has been spent poorly. Big money is going to a sound guy to run sound on the main pavilion stage, not needed. Even before the economy took a dive, Navy Pier was in trouble. Despite what they proclaim on their website, Navy Pier has not seen 8 million people a year in many years.
The first step to a solution is to embrace the idea that Navy Pier is an entertainment venue. The entertainment brings people in the door. I know from observing the pier for the last 13 years. If we fear the carnival tag, let’s call it a festival mall.
Chicago does festivals pretty well. This is something we know.
My feeling is that the pier should foster the feeling of the Columbian Exposition or some modern equivalent. I want something wonderful around every corner. Remember, the vast majority of people that go to Navy Pier are not from Chicago. They are looking for something special, unique, and Chicago.
So how do we do this?
The pier does need a face-lift. Repainting. A change in facades. Let’s lose the generic mall feel to the place. Add some character, perhaps change the flooring in the Family pavilion to Chicago bricks like the streets used to be paved with. Change the lighting to old Chicago street lamps. Add famous street signs. There are many ways to “Chicago up” the place.
Now how do we add entertainment without breaking our budget?
First, hire real pros. Let the professionals do what they do best. One of the things Navy Pier has done is lock all the performers onto stages. I was always really against this. When the performers walked around, spontaneous shows occurred. This is a special thing for our guests. You never knew what corner you might turn and find fun. Good surprises like this create a feeling of excitement. These spontaneous rather than the structured shows create a feeling of uniqueness. When a guest sees something that seems like a once in a lifetime experience, it becomes an often told story.
I mentioned in a previous entry that when the entertainment ends the people leave. I saw that while working many nights at the shop. The pier closes at 10 P. M. weekdays and Midnight on weekends. The entertainment would spot at 7 P. M. and the sound man would pack up. The people thinking things were over, went for the exits. The few who stayed were looking for something to fill their interest. Idle crowds are trouble. The moral is when the pier is open there should be entertainment. I will give a couple of hours in the morning when entertainment isn’t needed because people are just coming in, but after that, get to entertaining.
Years ago, John Mills and Jim Ellis, of Mills productions, wanted to host a street performers festival at the pier. This, at least in Mills’ and my heads, was a perfect marriage. Quick name a world-class city…Madrid? London? New York? Miami? LA? Dublin? Any world-class city you can name has a rich cultural life including a tradition of street performers.
Chicago, a pretender to the world-class tile, does not have this tradition. Chicago’s boss mayor and big brother aldermen want to treat street performers as beggars and a public nuisance. Sad. Some of the best performers in the world are street performers. Performers such as Robin Williams and Harry Anderson have come from the streets.
Let’s fix this situation. Here's where we need "stage areas." Navy Pier can audition street performers to ensure only the best performers work. The pier can schedule times and places to perform their street shows. The better performers can get the better slots and beginners can get the lesser ones until they improve. The performers can gather the crowds and pass the hat. Navy Pier has quality control. The performers have their freedom to earn. The spectators have the illusion of spontaneity. The pier does not lay out a cent for performers. Chicago can have some great street performers and they can perform at a great venue.
This addition alone would probably solve most of the pier’s entertainment problems, at least during the summer. Winter is another story. But not yet.
Chicago has a rich theatrical life. If Navy Pier wants to lock performers to their family pavilion stage, they should reach out to the many local theater groups. These groups could perform on stage and promote themselves in the process. Again, they add additional variety and novelty to a rich entertainment fabric.
The other opportunity to reach out would be the various ethnic communities in Chicago. The pier does reach out to Polish, Chinese, and Mexican communities. The also do events for Black history month. What about our other ethnic neighbors? I imagine a series of weekends during the winter celebrating the entirety of Chicago’s ethnic diversity. Food, music, art and culture would be a learning experience as well.
Some other ideas I have are: Do an indoor winter mini Taste of Chicago. Remember the cows, during the winter have the pier grounds lined with snowmen decorated by the many local artists in Chicago. In summer, invite chalk artists to create murals along the pier promenade.
You see there are opportunities for more fun at the pier. You just have to embrace it. The pier would be more than just a festival mall.
Navy Pier would be an event mall.
Every day would be a once in a lifetime experience.
Showing posts with label soapbox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soapbox. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, January 25, 2008
Magic and the TV world
"There’s a good deal in common between the mind’s eye and the TV screen, and though the TV set has all too often been the boob tube, it could be, it can be, the box of dreams." - Ursula K. Le Guin
There is a belief. One that has become a fiercely held magic doctrine. One that I have held onto fiercely myself. The best way to see magic is to see it live. That is it. In person trumps Television. Doesn’t compare. Nope. Not the least.
Given the choice. Live performance.
Have you been waiting for the “but”? Yeah, me too. Recently, I’ve been deep into two seemingly unrelated books that have made me reexamine my long held beliefs. The first is Performing Dark Arts, A Cultural History of Conjuring by Michael Mangan; the other is Words that Work by Dr. Frank Lutz. (Both are good reads, the first for an interesting take on the history of magic, the second with valuable advice on the use and misuse of words in politics, business, and life.)
In chapter seven of Dark Arts, Mangan covers life, death and the meaning of liveness. While he has many, more points than I will cover here. The first that I do want to look at is that for the past 30 or so years, if you asked the public the name of a magician, the magician they would name made their career on television. It can be said the even Houdini’s popularity today can be because of his exposure on television.
The second is a point of Philip Auslander. “Auslander’s point is that while live performance and the mass media are rivals...contemporary live performance seeks to replicate television, video, and film and also incorporates media technology to such an extent that the live event itself becomes a product of media technologies.”
While reading this I read this in Words: “It is an interesting phenomenon to watch television audiences at live studio tapings in Hollywood or New York. Those older than fifty will inevitably watch the actual performance, even if the actors are far away and partially obscured by cameras or lighting. But those younger than forty will watch the performance through the television monitors, even when the monitors and high above them and the actors nearby. Why? Because for younger audiences, it’s what comes through the television itself, not the performance, that defines the meaning of live. You can see this at sporting events as well. Younger fans watch the action on the “jumbotron” monitor rather than focusing on the game itself.”
TV has become the new reality.
Yet, I do have some reassurance. Every day some comes into the store and talks my language. They tell me that they want a magician do magic close-up, right in front of them rather than being separated from it, either by stage or by screen.
Of course, right after that someone comes in and asks if that Mind Freak guy is for real, “I mean how else could he do it?” The context of doing the tricks on the street, in “real life situations” adds to the live or real nature. Television doesn’t lie. As the old joke goes, “What are you going to believe me or your own eyes?”
People still go to plays, although they really can't be seen on TV. People do wait for the movie instead of reading the much higher quality book. People still go to concerts, but when they go to see U2 are they watching the band or the giant TV screens?
"Television thrives on unreason, and unreason thrives on television. It strikes at the emotions rather than the intellect." - Sir Robin Day
The thing I want to believe is that the masses are generally uneducated. If they experienced good live magic, they would understand its real power. Lacking a better choice, people will still choose a simulated reality.
It is our responsibility to change that.
"So why do people keep on watching? The answer, by now, should be perfectly obvious: we love television because television brings us a world in which television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life." -Barbara Ehrenreich
There is a belief. One that has become a fiercely held magic doctrine. One that I have held onto fiercely myself. The best way to see magic is to see it live. That is it. In person trumps Television. Doesn’t compare. Nope. Not the least.
Given the choice. Live performance.
Have you been waiting for the “but”? Yeah, me too. Recently, I’ve been deep into two seemingly unrelated books that have made me reexamine my long held beliefs. The first is Performing Dark Arts, A Cultural History of Conjuring by Michael Mangan; the other is Words that Work by Dr. Frank Lutz. (Both are good reads, the first for an interesting take on the history of magic, the second with valuable advice on the use and misuse of words in politics, business, and life.)
In chapter seven of Dark Arts, Mangan covers life, death and the meaning of liveness. While he has many, more points than I will cover here. The first that I do want to look at is that for the past 30 or so years, if you asked the public the name of a magician, the magician they would name made their career on television. It can be said the even Houdini’s popularity today can be because of his exposure on television.
The second is a point of Philip Auslander. “Auslander’s point is that while live performance and the mass media are rivals...contemporary live performance seeks to replicate television, video, and film and also incorporates media technology to such an extent that the live event itself becomes a product of media technologies.”
While reading this I read this in Words: “It is an interesting phenomenon to watch television audiences at live studio tapings in Hollywood or New York. Those older than fifty will inevitably watch the actual performance, even if the actors are far away and partially obscured by cameras or lighting. But those younger than forty will watch the performance through the television monitors, even when the monitors and high above them and the actors nearby. Why? Because for younger audiences, it’s what comes through the television itself, not the performance, that defines the meaning of live. You can see this at sporting events as well. Younger fans watch the action on the “jumbotron” monitor rather than focusing on the game itself.”
TV has become the new reality.
Yet, I do have some reassurance. Every day some comes into the store and talks my language. They tell me that they want a magician do magic close-up, right in front of them rather than being separated from it, either by stage or by screen.
Of course, right after that someone comes in and asks if that Mind Freak guy is for real, “I mean how else could he do it?” The context of doing the tricks on the street, in “real life situations” adds to the live or real nature. Television doesn’t lie. As the old joke goes, “What are you going to believe me or your own eyes?”
People still go to plays, although they really can't be seen on TV. People do wait for the movie instead of reading the much higher quality book. People still go to concerts, but when they go to see U2 are they watching the band or the giant TV screens?
"Television thrives on unreason, and unreason thrives on television. It strikes at the emotions rather than the intellect." - Sir Robin Day
The thing I want to believe is that the masses are generally uneducated. If they experienced good live magic, they would understand its real power. Lacking a better choice, people will still choose a simulated reality.
It is our responsibility to change that.
"So why do people keep on watching? The answer, by now, should be perfectly obvious: we love television because television brings us a world in which television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life." -Barbara Ehrenreich
Friday, September 07, 2007
Soapbox, Shut up
It is an old oft-repeated adage or an old oft-repeated aphorism or, maybe, neither. I am sure it can, at least, be called an old oft-repeated saying, perhaps aspiring to be an adage or aphorism.
“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
Oh sure, a fine bit of verbiage, a solid enough sentences as far as sentences go, I guess. The thought best suited for the slow-witted and consistently foolish who wish not to be spoken ill of and yet probably deserve it.
Yet, just think about how disastrous it would be if we all ran around not saying un-nice things. It’s 1860, “Those slaves down in the south? Well, if you can’t say anything nice...” Or how about 1935, “I say, that Hitler chap just invaded Poland. Well, if you can’t say...”
Extreme? Nevertheless, certainly valid. This is taking the thought to its logical conclusion. It is a sentiment that has permeated the magic world and editorialized as recently as a couple months ago in Magic Magazine. This kind of thought has helped keep magic in the dark ages for practically ever.
Nay, I say. Do speak ill. Don’t hide your distain.
There are signs of it changing. The internet has helped, Tim Ellis’ wonderful blog and Magic Fakers website for example. Honest and, in the face of the sniping magic world, brave writers like Jamy Ian Swiss are exerting influence in the magic world. Although too often, the criticized attack back with little reason and personal attacks.
To keep those who treasure truth over lies and pursue perfection over mediocrity in a safe zone, I offer up a correction to our insidious thought.
“If you can’t say anything nice, have evidence.”
Previously, I wrote about my dislike of a couple of big shots in the magic world. This was not just random name calling. I believe I had a reasonable argument. That is the most important point. It is not just enough to say some one sucks. There must be a why. Like Tim Ellis, it is not enough to say that some is a rip off artist, show where they stole from.
There are two other variations of this theme.
“If you can’t say anything constructive, don’t say anything at all.”
“If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.”
Both should be heeded by those denizens of the message boards. I have no vested interest in what people write. I lurk. I see how people treat and react to others. It is embarrassing.
Repeatedly I see people post honest questions only to be attacked:
“I am working on a new show. A complete mentalism show under the theme of Water.I am writing something very different and, in my opinion, interesting.All kinds of effects, will be presented, and I was wondering if you know of one effect that is done with water ...I would be interested in your opinions and ideas.”
Answer: “I think that this would have a limited appeal to an audience, and would seriously limit the scope of your performance options.”
Was that what the poster asked? What do you care? Answer the question.
I saw another response to a post, the answer to the poster’s request was, “I don’t know, ask someone else.”
What the fuck? I am too annoyed to write any more about it.
Another saying to remember is, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." (Thank you, Mark Twain.) Alternatively, try this, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to type online and remove all doubt."
So let us review the rules. Write them down, paste them above your computer, and before you type, review.
1) “If you can’t say anything nice, have evidence.”
2) “If you can’t say anything constructive, don’t say anything at all.”
3) “If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.”
“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
Oh sure, a fine bit of verbiage, a solid enough sentences as far as sentences go, I guess. The thought best suited for the slow-witted and consistently foolish who wish not to be spoken ill of and yet probably deserve it.
Yet, just think about how disastrous it would be if we all ran around not saying un-nice things. It’s 1860, “Those slaves down in the south? Well, if you can’t say anything nice...” Or how about 1935, “I say, that Hitler chap just invaded Poland. Well, if you can’t say...”
Extreme? Nevertheless, certainly valid. This is taking the thought to its logical conclusion. It is a sentiment that has permeated the magic world and editorialized as recently as a couple months ago in Magic Magazine. This kind of thought has helped keep magic in the dark ages for practically ever.
Nay, I say. Do speak ill. Don’t hide your distain.
There are signs of it changing. The internet has helped, Tim Ellis’ wonderful blog and Magic Fakers website for example. Honest and, in the face of the sniping magic world, brave writers like Jamy Ian Swiss are exerting influence in the magic world. Although too often, the criticized attack back with little reason and personal attacks.
To keep those who treasure truth over lies and pursue perfection over mediocrity in a safe zone, I offer up a correction to our insidious thought.
“If you can’t say anything nice, have evidence.”
Previously, I wrote about my dislike of a couple of big shots in the magic world. This was not just random name calling. I believe I had a reasonable argument. That is the most important point. It is not just enough to say some one sucks. There must be a why. Like Tim Ellis, it is not enough to say that some is a rip off artist, show where they stole from.
There are two other variations of this theme.
“If you can’t say anything constructive, don’t say anything at all.”
“If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.”
Both should be heeded by those denizens of the message boards. I have no vested interest in what people write. I lurk. I see how people treat and react to others. It is embarrassing.
Repeatedly I see people post honest questions only to be attacked:
“I am working on a new show. A complete mentalism show under the theme of Water.I am writing something very different and, in my opinion, interesting.All kinds of effects, will be presented, and I was wondering if you know of one effect that is done with water ...I would be interested in your opinions and ideas.”
Answer: “I think that this would have a limited appeal to an audience, and would seriously limit the scope of your performance options.”
Was that what the poster asked? What do you care? Answer the question.
I saw another response to a post, the answer to the poster’s request was, “I don’t know, ask someone else.”
What the fuck? I am too annoyed to write any more about it.
Another saying to remember is, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." (Thank you, Mark Twain.) Alternatively, try this, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to type online and remove all doubt."
So let us review the rules. Write them down, paste them above your computer, and before you type, review.
1) “If you can’t say anything nice, have evidence.”
2) “If you can’t say anything constructive, don’t say anything at all.”
3) “If you have nothing to say, don’t say it.”
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
PC Bastards
Those of you looking for a rant about Apple vs. PC, look elsewhere. This is a rant about a group of out-of-touch, power mad public “servants”, Chicago’s Aldermen.
First, a word about the so-called PC movement.
While I do agree that we should not discriminate against those that may be different from us, this movement has created an atmosphere of over sensitivity. Every I turn I see imagined slights and transgressions causing offense. Neutral language and equivocated statements are rendering our interactions beige, bland, and, at times, incomprehensible. Worse yet, boring. Look at the first sentence of this paragraph. I have to equivocate or else I know the PC fools will be on the attack. They want to impose rules onto other people.
I am not a smoker. I hate when I come home and my clothes smell from smoke. I would never date anyone again that smoked. My father had a horrible decade long battle within his body because of what smoking unfiltered Camel cigarettes did to it. Nasty things happened to my father. It finally killed him two years ago. Yet, I am against this smoking ban fad running rampant through America right now.
Smoking, while personally distasteful, is a legal act. You can buy cigarettes. You can pay the taxes on them. You just can’t smoke them. Prohibition, that worked out well, didn’t it? How about that war on drugs, glad we stamped them out. Whew!
My main complaint is that the free market should decide whether a particular business should be smoke free, limited smoking, or smoke filled. If enough people complain or refuse to patronize a business, the business must adapt. This is a time honored successful capitalist tradition. We do not need it to be legislated.
I don’t like Burger King’s French fries. I don’t eat Burger King’s French fries. I go to McDonald’s or Wendy’s. I do not go to Burger King. If enough people feel the same as I do then either Burger King will change or go out of business. No laws are required to change the fries at Burger King. The system we created, we depend on, works.
But, the Chicago City Gestapo has not only banned smoking, it has banned food and wants to further limit the free market by limiting the choices of how our food is made.
On May 4th, the City Gestapo’s Buildings Committee voted to reject an exemption that would have allowed actors on stage to by-pass the city ordinance that bans smoking in public places. So, if a play requires smoking, say to re-create a period or as an important metaphor, you can’t do it. A court in Colorado has already rules that an actor doesn’t have a First Amendment right to light up.
To a magician, this means the death of cigarette tricks. Violence and sex are protected on stage, but not cigarette manipulation. No, no, no.
Perhaps, this isn’t a battle I should be fighting or caring about, but I believe this is a chip knocked off the Constitution. This slow erosion of our rights is frightening. The process is so small that we hardly recognize that we are ceding the control of our lives to a political machine, bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
I’ve not performed my cigarette act in years, but I would like the option. I would like my audience to have the option of whether they want to see it or not. I want the system created by our founding fathers to be allowed to work.
The problem is one ban always follows another.
The real question to ask is, what’s next?
Without freedom, no art; art lives only on the restraints it imposes on itself, and dies of all others.
-- Albert Camus
Freedom is poetry, taking liberties with words, breaking the rules of normal speech, violating common sense. Freedom is violence.
-- Norman O. Brown
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
-- Noam Chomsky
The condition every art requires is, not so much freedom from restriction, as freedom from adulteration and from the intrusion of foreign matter.
--Willa Cather
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.
--Edmund Burke
For the article that inspired this entry please read Perform Ink.
http://performink.com/Framesets/2frmBody.html
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Soapbox
Deception and Art
Lately, I am filled with all sorts of half-baked, crackpot theories. This, I hope, is a relief for the crack-baked, half-pot theories that are pervasive on some blogs and the message boards around which I lurk. Actually, many of the blogs don’t impart much useful information or even ideas for thought. They are of the “today I blew my nose” and “there is a new movie in my town” or the “look I have nothing to say so I will continue to say it” ilk. The message boards, on the other hand, rate a whole other essay.
Today, I want talk a little more about this magic as art theory.
First, it is hard for me to go with this pretentious “art” idea. I must use the term for lack of a better one. The problem is that until the Victorian era, the idea of a low art and high art did not exist. The terms came to be as class distinctions grew during the 1800s.
America, for its first 60 years or so, acted as if it were a classless society; “all men created equal” and such. The reality was that there were two classes the haves and the have-nots. This became clearer during and after the civil war. The rich could buy their way out of the fighting. After the war, the nation had to deal with the new found equality of the Negroes.
Pre-war, pre-1900, magic was on the same level as all the other performance arts. As America, really the world, approached the turn-of-the-century, the elite of society split the arts into high and low. Let’s take the example of the ballet. I do not believe any now could argue that the ballet is considered a high art. Well you can argue, but you would be an idiot. Ballerinas, before the split, were considered whores because the showed their legs. Now, not so much.
As a notion, art, high or low, comes from the society and usually, but not always, the elite and the critics. It is a divisive term. It does not come from within.
Why, then, isn’t magic accepted by society as a high art? I have already explored several reasons. Answers to questions like these rarely have single easy answers. The answers are numerous and hard.
One of those answers may be the nature of magic itself will always hold it back.
Magic is the only art where deception is the goal. Further, the method of deception is the secret. I hear the argument already, “doesn’t acting require deception?” Well, no, you may believe some one in a character, but they are not trying to deceive you that they are that person.
As opposed to that, magic actively tries to deceive. We are defying the laws of nature, spitting in the eye of god. People don’t like when someone tries to deceive them. In most of art, the goal is to reveal truth. Magic’s goal is to deceive.
I hear the bizarrists and storytellers out there crying foul. Yes, you are trying to show some greater truths about the world in your stories. Yet, you use a deception to convey it. The deception undercuts the truth making it less trustworthy.
Neither do people like secrets being kept from them. We are answer-seeking people, so much so that we look for answers where there are no questions. We look for answers where there are none. We will not loosen our grip on wrong answers, any answers. My mother is a good example. As much as I try to teach her that psychics are not real, she wants to believe. When one is disproved, I hear, “well, I believe some people have powers, but those fakers on TV ruin it for the real ones.” She needs to have the answer of “greater powers” however wrong.
Could it be these components, inherent to magic, that will always hold it back?
Now we can look at two exceptions, each a different side of the magic coin. Several people e-mailed me a video of Jerome Murat from Dailymotion, a YouTube type of video web site. Find the video if you haven’t seen it. This is a very artistic act. I wonder, though, if the audience watching it realizes that it is a magic act or do they see it as a character performance and puppetry. Clearly, deception is not his goal, it is an artifice used to create the character. That artifice is well hidden, also. His secret is kept from the audience, but his deception is a special effect rather than a trick. The audience, entertained, sees art.
Time after time, the name Ricky Jay pops up in my store. When it does, the lay people who bring him up always express their admiration in terms of his high level of art. A while ago, I watched an old Ton Snyder show. The guests were a very young David Copperfield, a very hairy Ricky Jay, and a very Scarne, John Scarne. Ricky Jay performed this effect:
He displayed a shuffled deck and removed the ace through eight of clubs. He turned the deck face down, spread it out, and lost the selected cards in it. The deck was shuffled and cut repeatedly as he produced those cards. After the first eight productions, he continued to produce the balance of the clubs. At the end of which, he showed the deck not to be shuffled, but in numerical and suit order.
In this case, I believe his artifice is an open secret. He does not reveal how he does the trick, but he does show he is doing it with great skill. The audience sees his art in action. It is not hidden. In fact, the impossibility of it overwhelms the audience. He fools them with the trick, but does not keep the secret away from them. The audience, with great admiration for an artist’s technique, sees art.
Perhaps, having only one of the “bad” elements is acceptable to the audience, whereas two elements would be too much for an audience to bear. I am not sure myself.
Nevertheless, it is worth thinking about.
Lately, I am filled with all sorts of half-baked, crackpot theories. This, I hope, is a relief for the crack-baked, half-pot theories that are pervasive on some blogs and the message boards around which I lurk. Actually, many of the blogs don’t impart much useful information or even ideas for thought. They are of the “today I blew my nose” and “there is a new movie in my town” or the “look I have nothing to say so I will continue to say it” ilk. The message boards, on the other hand, rate a whole other essay.
Today, I want talk a little more about this magic as art theory.
First, it is hard for me to go with this pretentious “art” idea. I must use the term for lack of a better one. The problem is that until the Victorian era, the idea of a low art and high art did not exist. The terms came to be as class distinctions grew during the 1800s.
America, for its first 60 years or so, acted as if it were a classless society; “all men created equal” and such. The reality was that there were two classes the haves and the have-nots. This became clearer during and after the civil war. The rich could buy their way out of the fighting. After the war, the nation had to deal with the new found equality of the Negroes.
Pre-war, pre-1900, magic was on the same level as all the other performance arts. As America, really the world, approached the turn-of-the-century, the elite of society split the arts into high and low. Let’s take the example of the ballet. I do not believe any now could argue that the ballet is considered a high art. Well you can argue, but you would be an idiot. Ballerinas, before the split, were considered whores because the showed their legs. Now, not so much.
As a notion, art, high or low, comes from the society and usually, but not always, the elite and the critics. It is a divisive term. It does not come from within.
Why, then, isn’t magic accepted by society as a high art? I have already explored several reasons. Answers to questions like these rarely have single easy answers. The answers are numerous and hard.
One of those answers may be the nature of magic itself will always hold it back.
Magic is the only art where deception is the goal. Further, the method of deception is the secret. I hear the argument already, “doesn’t acting require deception?” Well, no, you may believe some one in a character, but they are not trying to deceive you that they are that person.
As opposed to that, magic actively tries to deceive. We are defying the laws of nature, spitting in the eye of god. People don’t like when someone tries to deceive them. In most of art, the goal is to reveal truth. Magic’s goal is to deceive.
I hear the bizarrists and storytellers out there crying foul. Yes, you are trying to show some greater truths about the world in your stories. Yet, you use a deception to convey it. The deception undercuts the truth making it less trustworthy.
Neither do people like secrets being kept from them. We are answer-seeking people, so much so that we look for answers where there are no questions. We look for answers where there are none. We will not loosen our grip on wrong answers, any answers. My mother is a good example. As much as I try to teach her that psychics are not real, she wants to believe. When one is disproved, I hear, “well, I believe some people have powers, but those fakers on TV ruin it for the real ones.” She needs to have the answer of “greater powers” however wrong.
Could it be these components, inherent to magic, that will always hold it back?
Now we can look at two exceptions, each a different side of the magic coin. Several people e-mailed me a video of Jerome Murat from Dailymotion, a YouTube type of video web site. Find the video if you haven’t seen it. This is a very artistic act. I wonder, though, if the audience watching it realizes that it is a magic act or do they see it as a character performance and puppetry. Clearly, deception is not his goal, it is an artifice used to create the character. That artifice is well hidden, also. His secret is kept from the audience, but his deception is a special effect rather than a trick. The audience, entertained, sees art.
Time after time, the name Ricky Jay pops up in my store. When it does, the lay people who bring him up always express their admiration in terms of his high level of art. A while ago, I watched an old Ton Snyder show. The guests were a very young David Copperfield, a very hairy Ricky Jay, and a very Scarne, John Scarne. Ricky Jay performed this effect:
He displayed a shuffled deck and removed the ace through eight of clubs. He turned the deck face down, spread it out, and lost the selected cards in it. The deck was shuffled and cut repeatedly as he produced those cards. After the first eight productions, he continued to produce the balance of the clubs. At the end of which, he showed the deck not to be shuffled, but in numerical and suit order.
In this case, I believe his artifice is an open secret. He does not reveal how he does the trick, but he does show he is doing it with great skill. The audience sees his art in action. It is not hidden. In fact, the impossibility of it overwhelms the audience. He fools them with the trick, but does not keep the secret away from them. The audience, with great admiration for an artist’s technique, sees art.
Perhaps, having only one of the “bad” elements is acceptable to the audience, whereas two elements would be too much for an audience to bear. I am not sure myself.
Nevertheless, it is worth thinking about.
Although, not to the exception of working to be a better performer, that is.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Soapbox
I have been thinking, which, in and of itself, is not always a great thing. There is much written about how the bunglers of our art are bring us all down. If only we could eliminate the slag and magic will be respected as an art.
Do the other art forms have this problem?
Did Van Gogh think, “Gee, if we could only get Pierre to draw nudes instead of stick figures, this ‘painting thing’ will really take off?”
I thought I couldn’t speak about other art forms. Music, song, painting, sculpture, dance, acting, writing, do they have their own seedy underworld of half-assed deluded fiends? Well, the simple answer is yes.
I do not travel in these other worlds, having no other discernible talent other than lying, but like many I enjoy the car crash that is the auditions for American Idol. Just picture a Svengali deck in the hands of these crazed lunatics and you will begin to see the average magic club meeting. Now, we can extrapolate this to the other art forms with little argument.
So, where has magic gone wrong?
1) The truly bad of the other arts have a much more difficult time making money at what they do. Bad singers go to karaoke. Bad painters fill their garages with unsold paintings. Bad actors serve food. Bad sculptures make ashtrays. Bad magicians still seem to find work. Maybe not repeat work, or regular work, but work. The public really has a difficult time separating the good from the bad. Usually because they have little reference, I find, working at magic masters, that the last magician anyone ever saw is the best magician they ever saw. How we became generic in the public’s eyes is a whole other essay. Even Criss Angel is more often known as “that mindfreak guy” not as Criss Angel.
2) The other arts do not have the same kind artificial support systems. There are fewer SAMs and IBMs in the other arts. There are teachers and classes. I belong to a writer’s group. That is a place where we analyze each others’ work. It is not a place for fake back slapping and equalizing. The magic bunglers can network with the magic screw-ups and crossbreed with the magic clueless. Magic clubs give the terminally idiotic a chance to be on an equal footing with professionals, as do the conventions. Don’t get me started on this internet thing.
3) The comodization of magic hurts the art. Magic is sold everywhere and anywhere. When someone sells magic at a price reflecting its worth, we think they are ripping us off. Magicians are notoriously cheap. Magic is sold at cut-rate lack-of-respect prices. We, as human beings, rarely respect what is not gained through work. Magic sets proclaim a whole show in one box, just like the pros, with no work. While the painting kit does not profess that you will be opening a gallery any time soon.
4) True professionals, true artists in any art forms worry about themselves. Being an artist is ultimately an egotistical pursuit. Do you think Prince gives a flying fuck about some hack guitar player working the local VFW in Mokena? Is Brad Pitt staying up nights tapping out a blog on how bad of an actor Keanu Reeves is? Fill in your own artist from you favorite art as an example. Artists and Professionals worry about themselves and doing the best job they can. While many professionals do give classes, they do it in actual music and acting schools. They do not give away their art to any jerk with $25 and a mom to drive them to the magic shop.
Respect what you do and work to improve yourself is all the advice you will ever need to make the magician a respected artist.
Do the other art forms have this problem?
Did Van Gogh think, “Gee, if we could only get Pierre to draw nudes instead of stick figures, this ‘painting thing’ will really take off?”
I thought I couldn’t speak about other art forms. Music, song, painting, sculpture, dance, acting, writing, do they have their own seedy underworld of half-assed deluded fiends? Well, the simple answer is yes.
I do not travel in these other worlds, having no other discernible talent other than lying, but like many I enjoy the car crash that is the auditions for American Idol. Just picture a Svengali deck in the hands of these crazed lunatics and you will begin to see the average magic club meeting. Now, we can extrapolate this to the other art forms with little argument.
So, where has magic gone wrong?
1) The truly bad of the other arts have a much more difficult time making money at what they do. Bad singers go to karaoke. Bad painters fill their garages with unsold paintings. Bad actors serve food. Bad sculptures make ashtrays. Bad magicians still seem to find work. Maybe not repeat work, or regular work, but work. The public really has a difficult time separating the good from the bad. Usually because they have little reference, I find, working at magic masters, that the last magician anyone ever saw is the best magician they ever saw. How we became generic in the public’s eyes is a whole other essay. Even Criss Angel is more often known as “that mindfreak guy” not as Criss Angel.
2) The other arts do not have the same kind artificial support systems. There are fewer SAMs and IBMs in the other arts. There are teachers and classes. I belong to a writer’s group. That is a place where we analyze each others’ work. It is not a place for fake back slapping and equalizing. The magic bunglers can network with the magic screw-ups and crossbreed with the magic clueless. Magic clubs give the terminally idiotic a chance to be on an equal footing with professionals, as do the conventions. Don’t get me started on this internet thing.
3) The comodization of magic hurts the art. Magic is sold everywhere and anywhere. When someone sells magic at a price reflecting its worth, we think they are ripping us off. Magicians are notoriously cheap. Magic is sold at cut-rate lack-of-respect prices. We, as human beings, rarely respect what is not gained through work. Magic sets proclaim a whole show in one box, just like the pros, with no work. While the painting kit does not profess that you will be opening a gallery any time soon.
4) True professionals, true artists in any art forms worry about themselves. Being an artist is ultimately an egotistical pursuit. Do you think Prince gives a flying fuck about some hack guitar player working the local VFW in Mokena? Is Brad Pitt staying up nights tapping out a blog on how bad of an actor Keanu Reeves is? Fill in your own artist from you favorite art as an example. Artists and Professionals worry about themselves and doing the best job they can. While many professionals do give classes, they do it in actual music and acting schools. They do not give away their art to any jerk with $25 and a mom to drive them to the magic shop.
Respect what you do and work to improve yourself is all the advice you will ever need to make the magician a respected artist.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Truth and The Magician--Soapbox Special
I lie. That’s okay considering my chosen life. I am a magician and all magic tricks are based on lies. Overt lies and lies by omission. Also, I am a writer. In non-fiction, sometimes a writer lies as an expedient way to the truth. In fiction, it is the little lies that become truth. I excel at lying.
Some magicians I know have a problem with this lying thing. Not that they cannot do it, it is that they are uncomfortable with the term when performing magic. As if telling someone that the coin is in one hand when it is really in the other, isn’t a lie. Lies do not have to be malicious to be lies. Let’s face it; deception is at the heart of magic, without it, magic cannot exist. We must lie and lie well.
No, not a glorious way to put it, but it is the truth. No lie.
It does keep me humble. One of the temptations of a magician is to believe that we are somewhat better than the average person. Smarter. Cleverer. The rush of pulling one over on some feels great. When I can do it with the simplest of means, even better. Foolish mortals.
Lying seduces. Any action performed often enough becomes a habit. Any habit can become an addiction. I lie, often. Far more often than the average person. If I am not careful, it can become a habit.
Does this lead to a "chicken and egg" kind of argument? Yes. Do people that have a propensity to lie become drawn to magic? In some cases, yes. Do people find they cannot draw the line between performance lying and real-life lying? YES.
Applause rewards our lies. It starts out just for performance and then we fudge the amount we really received for a gig. The little lies begin to pile up. We lie to ourselves about how great we are and how much audiences love us. Habit becomes addiction. Little lies beget bigger lies.
Soon, we steal other’s material and justify it. Or, we knock off a product and sell it. Copy something and resell the original on ebay. Down the rabbit hole we gooooooo.
The magic world itself lives as its own worst enemy. We revere the some of the worst offenders. What Harry Kellar couldn’t buy, he stole. Our hero. Frank Garcia once lifted all of Fred Kaps’ promotional material, not even changing the Danish newspaper quotes to American newspapers. The list of magic luminaries that are douche bags does not end.
My friend Tim owns one of the best magic shops in the world. He does not over-charge, even when he can. He contains a several lifetimes of valuable knowledge. He will give magicians, people he knows and people he has known for many years, wide access in his store. How is he rewarded for this? They steal. A DVD here, a book there, a trick or two, it adds up to real money. These are “brother” magicians.
Another brother magician, a lecturer, conned Tim out of an extra $40 by lying about his hotel bill. Tim will tell you who it is. I wonder if that lie will be worth it in the end. Some magicians just cannot stop lying.
Magic dealers, especially manufacturers and wholesalers, continue to offend at an even greater pace. The second dealers ever in business ripped off the first. We give lip service to ethics and the buy from the con artists we decry. One of the things we should look at is the power of our dollar to make a difference. Don’t buy copies. Don’t buy knock offs. Don’t buy anything, even the real stuff, from someone who abets the knock off artists. Strangle them to death. It is better to do without.
My advice is to clean your own house. Remember, lies and deceits are for the stage, not for life. As a child, you may not know the boundaries of right and wrong, but as an adult, it is time. If we do that then the magic world will come along for the ride.
Some magicians I know have a problem with this lying thing. Not that they cannot do it, it is that they are uncomfortable with the term when performing magic. As if telling someone that the coin is in one hand when it is really in the other, isn’t a lie. Lies do not have to be malicious to be lies. Let’s face it; deception is at the heart of magic, without it, magic cannot exist. We must lie and lie well.
No, not a glorious way to put it, but it is the truth. No lie.
It does keep me humble. One of the temptations of a magician is to believe that we are somewhat better than the average person. Smarter. Cleverer. The rush of pulling one over on some feels great. When I can do it with the simplest of means, even better. Foolish mortals.
Lying seduces. Any action performed often enough becomes a habit. Any habit can become an addiction. I lie, often. Far more often than the average person. If I am not careful, it can become a habit.
Does this lead to a "chicken and egg" kind of argument? Yes. Do people that have a propensity to lie become drawn to magic? In some cases, yes. Do people find they cannot draw the line between performance lying and real-life lying? YES.
Applause rewards our lies. It starts out just for performance and then we fudge the amount we really received for a gig. The little lies begin to pile up. We lie to ourselves about how great we are and how much audiences love us. Habit becomes addiction. Little lies beget bigger lies.
Soon, we steal other’s material and justify it. Or, we knock off a product and sell it. Copy something and resell the original on ebay. Down the rabbit hole we gooooooo.
The magic world itself lives as its own worst enemy. We revere the some of the worst offenders. What Harry Kellar couldn’t buy, he stole. Our hero. Frank Garcia once lifted all of Fred Kaps’ promotional material, not even changing the Danish newspaper quotes to American newspapers. The list of magic luminaries that are douche bags does not end.
My friend Tim owns one of the best magic shops in the world. He does not over-charge, even when he can. He contains a several lifetimes of valuable knowledge. He will give magicians, people he knows and people he has known for many years, wide access in his store. How is he rewarded for this? They steal. A DVD here, a book there, a trick or two, it adds up to real money. These are “brother” magicians.
Another brother magician, a lecturer, conned Tim out of an extra $40 by lying about his hotel bill. Tim will tell you who it is. I wonder if that lie will be worth it in the end. Some magicians just cannot stop lying.
Magic dealers, especially manufacturers and wholesalers, continue to offend at an even greater pace. The second dealers ever in business ripped off the first. We give lip service to ethics and the buy from the con artists we decry. One of the things we should look at is the power of our dollar to make a difference. Don’t buy copies. Don’t buy knock offs. Don’t buy anything, even the real stuff, from someone who abets the knock off artists. Strangle them to death. It is better to do without.
My advice is to clean your own house. Remember, lies and deceits are for the stage, not for life. As a child, you may not know the boundaries of right and wrong, but as an adult, it is time. If we do that then the magic world will come along for the ride.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Soapbox Quote Me
Hey, it has been a while since I got up on my soapbox, but I wanted to make sure we all started 2007 correctly. Much of my thoughts this coming year will center on not only magic history, but responsibility you have when you live as a magician, and what makes good, good. Two places to start:
1. Eric Mead's book Tangled Web (especially his essays)
2. The Jon Stetson interview, Magic January 2007. Use this quote to start your year and restart the way you approach your magic. If you don't want to listen to me. Listen to him.
1. Eric Mead's book Tangled Web (especially his essays)
2. The Jon Stetson interview, Magic January 2007. Use this quote to start your year and restart the way you approach your magic. If you don't want to listen to me. Listen to him.
"Magicians who think the show is all about them are wrong.
It's not about you, it's about the people who come to see you--your audience."
Have a safe and happy new year.
(And for you non-magicians, I hope to have some stuff for you also.)
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Four Rs
I'm in my late 30s, not that old. From this perspective at least. As a young child I heard about the importance of the three Rs. Of course in this form, reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic, while charming, are hardly helpful to a developing child. Yet, we can't argue with the importance of all three. With two, writing and reading, I excelled. Arithmetic, I didn't. Funny, because I use math much more than I ever thought I would and am forcing myself to be better at it.
For argument, here are 4 Rs for successful magic:
Rehearsal
Re-examine
Refine
Rewrite
And lets add a fifth.....Repeat
In fact, they are just not for magic tricks.
For argument, here are 4 Rs for successful magic:
Rehearsal
Re-examine
Refine
Rewrite
And lets add a fifth.....Repeat
In fact, they are just not for magic tricks.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Soapbox
As I am jumping atop a soapbox, I want to be careful to say that these are the things that I believe and work for me. Everyone is different and as the saying goes, “one man’s wand is another man’s stick.” (Do not read anything into that!)
Briefly, I believe that...
1) We are all in this to elicit a response from our audience: gasp, laugh, or applause. To say otherwise is to be a fool or a liar. We all seek our audience’s approval.
Think of these acts: Johnny Thompson, Eugene Burger, Max Malini, Lance Burton, David Blaine, Mac King, Harry Blackstone, Harry Kellar, David Copperfield, Doug Henning, Tom Mullica, Matt Schulien, Houdini, etc. Each one of these acts is different. Each act is uniquely individual, (yet each has a precedent.) Each one has reached the heights of our community.
But I will wager that the thing first in their minds is their audience, not self-expression. Their acts were chiseled into form by the sharp edges of the audience. If something pleased the audience, it stayed in; if something did not, it went into the garbage. They did not keep stuff in that wasn’t working because it was an expression of self. The audience determines what part of you they want more of and what part they want less of. Successful magicians learn from their audiences. Their acts exist by the good favor of their audience. The main problem is most magicians never listen to their audience.
2) “Magic” is a word that has many meanings, it this instance I am using it to describe the experience one receives when seeing a trick. Magic does not exist...except in the minds of our audience. To go further, it only happens in the minds of a layperson. Although it will rarely and briefly happen in a magician’s mind also. Magic is not in our cards or our hands or in our minds.
If you are skeptical, try this experiment: First, perform your best trick for yourself, in a mirror. Second, perform the same for another magician. Third, perform the same for the first stranger you meet on the street. Where did the magic occur?
Magic is created by the congruent and incongruent images we give to the spectator’s mind. You can’t fool yourself. You can rarely fool another magician, but the magician’s mind moves quickly to the intellectual exercise of the method. You can only create magic in the mind of someone closed to the secrets. Other “arts” can exist in a vacuum. Painting, poetry, dance, music can all exist without an audience. I can argue that acting may be able to exist without an audience, but I am weak on that subject. I waver because magic and acting are so closely allied. However, magic cannot exist without an audience. By extension, we do not exist without an audience.
I’ll speak more to the differences between the MagicianCentric (egocentric) view of magic and the AudienceCentric views of magic in a later post.
Briefly, I believe that...
1) We are all in this to elicit a response from our audience: gasp, laugh, or applause. To say otherwise is to be a fool or a liar. We all seek our audience’s approval.
Think of these acts: Johnny Thompson, Eugene Burger, Max Malini, Lance Burton, David Blaine, Mac King, Harry Blackstone, Harry Kellar, David Copperfield, Doug Henning, Tom Mullica, Matt Schulien, Houdini, etc. Each one of these acts is different. Each act is uniquely individual, (yet each has a precedent.) Each one has reached the heights of our community.
But I will wager that the thing first in their minds is their audience, not self-expression. Their acts were chiseled into form by the sharp edges of the audience. If something pleased the audience, it stayed in; if something did not, it went into the garbage. They did not keep stuff in that wasn’t working because it was an expression of self. The audience determines what part of you they want more of and what part they want less of. Successful magicians learn from their audiences. Their acts exist by the good favor of their audience. The main problem is most magicians never listen to their audience.
2) “Magic” is a word that has many meanings, it this instance I am using it to describe the experience one receives when seeing a trick. Magic does not exist...except in the minds of our audience. To go further, it only happens in the minds of a layperson. Although it will rarely and briefly happen in a magician’s mind also. Magic is not in our cards or our hands or in our minds.
If you are skeptical, try this experiment: First, perform your best trick for yourself, in a mirror. Second, perform the same for another magician. Third, perform the same for the first stranger you meet on the street. Where did the magic occur?
Magic is created by the congruent and incongruent images we give to the spectator’s mind. You can’t fool yourself. You can rarely fool another magician, but the magician’s mind moves quickly to the intellectual exercise of the method. You can only create magic in the mind of someone closed to the secrets. Other “arts” can exist in a vacuum. Painting, poetry, dance, music can all exist without an audience. I can argue that acting may be able to exist without an audience, but I am weak on that subject. I waver because magic and acting are so closely allied. However, magic cannot exist without an audience. By extension, we do not exist without an audience.
I’ll speak more to the differences between the MagicianCentric (egocentric) view of magic and the AudienceCentric views of magic in a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)