talkmagic.co.uk

I have been advised to put forward my request for a forum for 'theory' here. Please allow me to repeat some of what I wrote elsewhere:

Note from Mods: Good idea but please remove the inaccuracies and criticism first. Some of the responses after this post have been deleted as they will now be inappropriate.

I personally think a subsection for magic theory could be quite interesting, as it is quite an important facet of the art.

It would also be nice if some people could offer their opinions without the need to insult others, that way it would remain a discussion and not develop into a petty slagging match.

Well thats what I think and if you don't like it you can all bu**er off!

This is certainly an excellent idea, and a point which, as far as I can see, generally lacks attention from magicians as a whole. It would be good to be able to express our views on what magic should really be like and how to make magic feel real e.t.c in a section particuarly designed for similar topics, instead of different viewpoints being scattered about the place, in reviews and support and tips for example. Obviously there will be conflicting opinions, but it would certainly be a useful tool to be able to discuss these important issues.

This is certainly an interesting topic and one which(methinks) should be taken very seriously.

I think it would be great to have a theory section where we can discuss fundamental principles, framing, scripting, structure, etc.

I think that its an awesome idea, although perhaps it should be in the restricted section, as it may be a bit deep for newer members like myself

Soren Riis wrote:I have been advised to put forward my request for a forum for 'theory' here. Please allow me to repeat some of what I wrote elsewhere:

Note from Mods: Good idea but please remove the inaccuracies and criticism first. Some of the responses after this post have been deleted as they will now be inappropriate.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the post that you - the moderators - ask me to modify. I appologies if the post contains inaccuracies or if it does not follow the general rules and ettiquette.

I would be greatful if you would PM me the post or provide me with a link to where I can read the post you ask me to modify. This will hopefully also help me understand why the message has been removed in the first place.

Once more let me appologies if I expressed myself in an unfortunate way. This was not my intension.

I think, although I'm not sure, they are referring to this post, which you copied and pasted here: http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic15728-0-asc-0.php

I did endeed use and quote part of that post, but I though I already left out most of the unacceptable part. I can be quite passionate about magic and I must admit that it can some times be easy to wind me up.

Not a problem, how about we just start again with some basic thoughts and opinions about Theory?

My two cent's worth would be that it's right to take our art seriously and do the very best we can but to dissect, examine and over analyse it would destroy the entertainment and fun. It’s a bit like comedy which is only funny when done for the first few times, after that any further examination destroys the comedy itself. Mind you, I'm also strongly in favour of just performing the works of Shakespeare rather than endlessly taking them apart in classrooms to discuss rhyme, metre and construction - the guy wrote these things to be performed and entertain and I reckon it's the same with magic. Of course, I could be wrong……..

Mandrake wrote:Not a problem, how about we just start again with some basic thoughts and opinions about Theory?

My two cent's worth would be that it's right to take our art seriously and do the very best we can but to dissect, examine and over analyse it would destroy the entertainment and fun. It’s a bit like comedy which is only funny when done for the first few times, after that any further examination destroys the comedy itself. Mind you, I'm also strongly in favour of just performing the works of Shakespeare rather than endlessly taking them apart in classrooms to discuss rhyme, metre and construction - the guy wrote these things to be performed and entertain and I reckon it's the same with magic. Of course, I could be wrong……..

Yes I agree! Freuds book on jokes is (despite a few very good jokes), extremely boring and a complete waste of time if one wants to become a good stand-up comedian

Does theory kill the artistic process? Does it ruin the fun by making performers too self-conscious?

When I see other magicians perform I am usually just enjoying and never "critical" while watching. I simply just like to experience the magic as if I was a layperson. My analytic mind is more or less switched off.

When I create a new effect (usually based on principles I am already familiar with) I just have fun and I do not think "theory". However, sometimes it is useful to think in more theoretical terms. I feel that to create magic with maximal impact one has somehow to combine the creative artistic with the analytic and rational. And of course not forgetting to have fun!

I agree that critics often "over analyse" a piece of art. Critics are usually poor artist themselves. When I talk about Theory is more in the style as almost any of the famous magicians do on their DVDs these days!! Most DVDs by top performers are loaded with theory! Often the time spend discussing the general thoughs behind an effect takes up considerably more time than the purely technical explanation of the effect!

Theories are everywhere. How do we get hired at a restaurant? How should we approach the manager? What is the best approach?

What is the best way to do the D/L in a certain given effect? Without theory such questions are almost impossible to think about. The answer often follows from purely theoretical considerations.

All good theory HAS to be founded in real life, otherwise its just empty and useless.

Sometimes theory can be a bit uncomfortable since it might question the way we like to do things. I think many great magicians developed their magic almost by instinct without thinking too much in theoretical terms. Yet, later they often become conscious about why something works. A lot of magic DVDs and books are full of theoretical pearls and insights!! Often these insights are the most important on the DVD!

But we all have different styles and some might find most theory waste of time. I do however strongly (and with great passion) believe that good theory can help us enhance what we do and can help us the decide ways to improve our magic. And this can be done without destroying it our cutting the artistic input to pieces.

Magic is an Art as well as a Science.

For what it's worth (though I can't recall enough about the post to find it) there was a discussion that touched on this a couple months back.

At that point the debate centered around moving the "essay" section out of the restricted access area and into a place everyone can read it.

I don't have an opinion as I have no knowledge of what is actually contained within the aforementioned section.

However, I do enjoy the threads sprinkled throughout the forum about magic theory. The issue for me is how segmented and specialized do we make the forum without it being tedious?

Personally, I like sitting down to talkmagic and know I can catch up on a day's worth of posts in roughly 45 minutes. Other forums (e.g. the cafe) take days just to catch up on a couple hours worth of activites. Partially because of the amount of hits these sites get, but also there are waaay too many subforums.

Is there enough of an issue tracking down the posts about the magic theory in existing subforums OR would a seperate subforum encourage more talk of magic theory to justify another subforum?

I don't know that I've been around the forum long enough to answer these questions, but that's what I've been wondering about since reading this post.

Theory is important - providing it is good theory and not founded on a false premise-but it should be worked out way before you ever perform. The last thing you should do is to be concentrating inwardly instead of working to the punters. That is the flaw in the "silent scripts" c*** (not the best) that I swear I read about in the Henning Nelms book. You are not there to talk to yourself. You are there to talk to your audience.

Once you have decided upon your philosophy and have it ingrained in your subconcious mind then you act upon it automatically without thinking about it. Something like learning a sleight. Once you have it mastered you don't think about it.

Now if you do something in actual performance which goes against your philosopy don't sweat it. Concentrate on the punters. I don't think I have ever done a single performance where there hasn't been some flaw or other. So what? I am not looking for utter perfection in the greater scheme of things. Overall faults don't matter that much-lack of virtues does. If you are concentrating so hard to not do a single thing wrong you may end up with a stilted performance. No need to be perfect-try being human instead.

Soren mentions trying to think like a layman. If you can manage this it can be one of the most useful attributes a performer can have. I believe ANY method can be used by a performer providing it is deceptive. If you can achieve the same result by a simple cut it may perhaps be foolish to use the pass. Of course this depends entirely on the context of the trick but in general it is foolish to use a difficult method when an easier one will do just as well. Providing the easier method is the right one for the job of course.

The most important thing in magic is to develop a character. It should be interesting and entertaining. Once you have assumed this persona it should be magnified as much as you can without it becoming unnatural.

YOU are the magic. The trick just comes along for the ride. I am not saying the material should be weak. On the contrary it should be as strong as possible. However more important than any trick is the person that is doing it. You are not there to present magic. You are there to present YOURSELF doing magic.

Once Soren has that figured out he will be well on his way.

oooh Freud on Jokes was painfully funny...

on the subject of Theory, i feel it would be a nice addition to the place, but hey - a thread will do if we continue to bump it to the top everynow and again..

my only fear would be that anyone who dares step outside the box (even if its just in theory) then all hell would break lose and become somewhat boring as we get into the common circular arguments...

however, on the "thinking like a layperson"...i do occasionally just ask people to name something they'd like to see and what they would class as really magical, then have a think about it all...

At the Ipswich Magic Day last year we were treated to lectures by Oz Pearlman, Paul Daniels and Roy Davenport who are different in terms of their magic, their style and their performances but all shared a common thread. They'd taken the time to think about what they were doing, why they were doing it, who it was for etc and basically sweated through their routines and tricks to the point where they were happy that they were to a good enough standard to perform to, and entertain, the public. Whilst a policy of continual refinement and improvement carries on, they'd applied all the theory before even unleashing anything on the public and, as they are all very successful professional performers, it certainly shows the worth of thinking it through and doing the brain work beforehand. Yes, taking theory into account is essential otherwise we'd be relying on pure luck to get it right!

Mandrake wrote:they'd applied all the theory before even unleashing anything on the public and, as they are all very successful professional performers, it certainly shows the worth of thinking it through and doing the brain work beforehand.

This makes a lot of sense.

Learning theory and/or putting theory into practice both go hand in hand with practising your effects or routines. Once you have the theory down, be it consciously or subconsciously (a lot of the time it just drops into place without really realising it), practising suddenly becomes a lot easier.

In fact, once you've practised until the moves are spot-on, and the theory behind the moves links together, you are no longer practising, you are rehearsing.

It is then you need to consider the theories of showmanship and presentation.

Only then should we be performing.

If only we could contain our excitement and stop showing our friends that new trick we just bought despite not really having even read the instructions thoroughly...