The root of this publicly viewed "uniformity" stems from several factors in magic, I believe. I mean, one could argue that since there are so few magicians out there, compared to singers, dancers, film makers, etc, that the sterotype of a magician is likely to be the most influential piece in the public's image of magicians. What is this stereotype, a man in a tuxedo and top hat doing old, cliche tricks. (The Tuxedo by the way, is just the epitome of sameness I think.)
But that's the society's fault I suppose. I'm sure jugglers, ventriloquests, and mimes deal with the same sorts of originally problems. (BTW, one of the most moving, artful pieces I've ever seen on stage was by a mime.)
But I guess the real problem with this is that, as magicians, we all do the same tricks. Why shouldn't we be percieved as all interchangable. But that's not really entirely our fault either. There are only so many things 'magical' one can do. One can make something vanish, appear, transform, teleport, restore, escape, penetrate, predict, and percieved through supernatural mean (reading minds). That is it.
Now of course, you can do these tricks with a trillion different objects, presentations, order, and twists. So why do so many magicians peform the bill to lemon? I think we can credit Darwin with the answer; natural selection.
For some reason or another, throuhgout the ages of magic and marketting, and performance and art, the natural selection of all these forces and desided that, for most performers, for this teleporation, a bill and lemon are the best objects to use. For penetrations: linking rings, for vanishes and productions: cups and balls, for restorations: a piece of newspaper, for a predictions: meaningless shapes and numbers, for transformations: a silk into a cane, for escapes: a water torture cell.
Maybe the last one was a little hyperbolous, but you get the idea. And these are all very good tricks, which explain why they are the classics of magic. However, the problem is, when we all do them, they become cliche and earn us the title of being interchangable performers.
In response, most peformers and magic trick producers, immediately look for simple substituations for these classic effects. Everyone has seen the linking rings, but in my act, I'm going to use linking coathangers! Now the trick is better because it's something new, and better yet, is an ordinary object! Now it's a new and better trick!.
Hmm...not really. I imagine that when most audience member see the linking coathangers routine, the first thought they have is "why isn't he just doing it with rings, like every other magician," not "wow, most magicians do this trick with rings, but he's using coathangers!"
The trick is the same, and as little emotional meaning as a typical linking rings routine has, I'd argue that the linking coathangers has even less. It is even more mundane, and much more awkward. At least with a linking ring routine, you have an opportunity to be elegant. The rings can be a beautiful performance piece, if done by a master. Alternatively, the linking coat hangers could also be a good routine, if it fit with the theme of the performer. (The thought of a character who cannot afford rings, but still wants to be a magician immediately comes to mind. However, in this example, notice how the use of this substitue prop is accounted for in the performance, and not merely ignored.)
However, much of this discussion has been about an ordinary performance by an ordinary performer. I truely believe any master magician can take any trick and turn it into at least a good performance piece. At the opposite end of the bell curve, however, poor magicians can very easily butcher perfect magic tricks. I am not interested in these two extremes, but the center, the area where most of us lie.
More on this later...
0 comments:
Post a Comment