talkmagic.co.uk

cc100 - you do realise, I hope, that there's nothing deeply meaningful behind Banksy's work, right?
He's a ballsy guy who's handy with a craft knife and has asnarky sense of humour. That's it. I've been seeing his work up since LONG before he became a cult icon and darling of the modern art establishment.

There are many examples of incredibly low-brow art (some lower-brow than you can possibly imagine) being read into FAR too much by people who "know" art and being loaded with astonishingly deep meanings that simply are not there and were never intended.

He started out taking the p*** out of the graffiti world by essentially doing what they were doing but by using stencils he did it super quickly and annoyed everyone. Then someone desperate to find the next big thing blew their load over what he did and ever since he's been taking the p*** out of the people in the modern art world.

As for the rest of your comments about literature and art, quite frankly most of it comes down to definitions. In fact, definitions and the definition/redefinition thereof seem to me to be the source of almost all the controversy in the "what is art" question.

Depending who you ask, "art" means anything from craft to technical accomplishment and aesthetically pleasing to deep, controversial or challenging meaning.
Ditto "great works literature". I don't know (or particularly care) about Twilight, but I know for sure that the jury is still out on Potter. I don't suppose many criticise Lewis for dealing with "old themes" in Narnia (old like the bible with The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe being a puddle deep retelling of the biblical theme of sin and redemption by sacrifice) yet seem quick on the draw with such criticisms about Potter.

That said, I don't have a horse in this race, I just find it odd that people read so much meaning into the puddle-deep works of Banksy and are so quick to dismiss Potter. I don't care either way (despite what the length of this post might suggest) as I think it's all b******s and hot air anyway, but I can't help picking up on the daftness of it all when I see it.

Dynamo - the public love him and he inspires magicians to discuss modern art.
That's really something....

I stopped watching buzzcocks when Bill Bailey left.

Lee Smith wrote:Like it or not Dynamo and others have done a lot for magic.

If laymen like what they see then great! stooge or no stooge, it will make no difference what someone like Dynamo is doing other than the fact that people are talking about magic again.

The moment a lay person see's great magic performed in front of them everything else goes out the window no matter what or who it is. Remember he mainly does marketed effects so anyone can do these things.

If someone says something like how did Dynamo put the phone in the bottle? or what do you think about Dynamo, Derren or Blaine.? Just say they are great? And have all helped keep magic popular Now check this out.

Then proceed to warp the muggles mind.

Point is, it doesn't matter who performs what as long as its done well and lay people enjoy it then magic will continue to exist. These people just help us to keep it interesting on massive scale. We need to worry when they stop asking or are bored with the concept of TV magic.


I dont think anyone in this country will will ever have the TV success or career of someone like Daniels again. But if they do it will be good for all of us.

Lee.

Definitely one of the more true posts of the forum!

Part-Timer wrote:

cc100 wrote:I don't think you can seriously compare Piff with people in other arts like Banksy or T.S. Eliot.

Good job I wasn't being wholly serious on that point, then, isn't it? I was mainly disagreeing with your view that it was childish, when the act relied upon an adult's expectations of magicians or people in animal costumes. It didn't reinforce images; it confounded them. No particularly deep meaning, I agree, but it was far from childish.

I am not entirely convinced that Banksy or Warhol have any particularly deep meanings either. Get an popular image or idea, turn it into something else.

No idea where you got Eliot from; I don't think there's any significant point of comparison.

Anyway, that's more than enough "highbrow" stuff for a magic forum from me.

To be honest, I'm not exactly an artistic guy myself, so I can't comment that much on Banksy - I just used it because someone else referred to it. I selected T. S. Eliot because of his bohemian poetry, in that it reacted against earlier movements in literature. Eliot didn't use the formal structure and rhyme that you'd expect in poetry, but he did it for a reason - to show the abject and disjointed nature of modern life. So what I was saying is that Piff makes a point of dressing as a dragon, but I'm not exactly sure what it accomplishes. So to me it just seems a bit silly.

What I was trying to say is that Piff exaggerates the puerility of magic with his costume, but for no real reason, in my opinion. But if you like it and find it entertaining then that's fine. It's just not my ideal of how magic should be performed. I wasn't having a go or anything.

This thread has entered Pete and Berni's Philosophical Steakhouse.
Any Alan Partridge fans will know what I mean.

It maybe a late response on this thread but I thought I would offer my opinion (as everyone else is lol!). In my stand up I gave Dynamo a bit of stick, I said something along the lines of (woopie doo he can fool Rio Ferdinand, given that Rio has trouble spelling his last name I am pretty certain he is not the hardest ****** to fool?). It got a giggle but after the show I was confronted on why I didn't like him. I explained it was a joke, I have no problem admitting that I am very VERY jealous that Dynamo gets a lot of attention when there are a lot of more techniqually capable performers out there. However I enjoy his shows and I am really fond of his style and that he is bringing magic back to television.

The only thing that bugs me is that he has a 'Dynamo Shuffle' which to me does not look like a shuffle but more like a cut in the style of sybil?

Meh? Who knows.

Good Luck to him I say!

Lord Freddie wrote:This thread has entered Pete and Berni's Philosophical Steakhouse.
Any Alan Partridge fans will know what I mean.

It appears to be happy hour.

Lord Freddie wrote:This thread has entered Pete and Berni's Philosophical Steakhouse.
Any Alan Partridge fans will know what I mean.

Back of the net.

Part-Timer wrote:There are many examples of incredibly low-brow art (some lower-brow than you can possibly imagine) being read into FAR too much by people who "know" art and being loaded with astonishingly deep meanings that simply are not there and were never intended.

I forget the name of the poet now but when I was studying GCSE English, one of the poets in the anthology were asked about the interpretation of their poem after sitting in on an English lesson, their response was something along the lines of;

"I'm really impressed, I never knew my poem meant all that, I just thought I was describing a tree."

I believe Shakespeare also once expressed some surprise at the unintentional depths whch other found in his works.

russpie wrote:

Lord Freddie wrote:This thread has entered Pete and Berni's Philosophical Steakhouse.
Any Alan Partridge fans will know what I mean.

It appears to be happy hour.

A_n_t wrote:

Lord Freddie wrote:This thread has entered Pete and Berni's Philosophical Steakhouse.
Any Alan Partridge fans will know what I mean.

Back of the net.

Part-Timer wrote:There are many examples of incredibly low-brow art (some lower-brow than you can possibly imagine) being read into FAR too much by people who "know" art and being loaded with astonishingly deep meanings that simply are not there and were never intended.

I forget the name of the poet now but when I was studying GCSE English, one of the poets in the anthology were asked about the interpretation of their poem after sitting in on an English lesson, their response was something along the lines of;

"I'm really impressed, I never knew my poem meant all that, I just thought I was describing a tree."

In A-level English literature, though, you learn that what the author intended is not necessarily that important. It's a concept in literary criticism called the intentional fallacy. It argues that readers should be allowed to attribute their own meanings and interpretations to literature, irrespective of what the author actually intended. A form of that exists, I think, when you attach personal feelings and experiences to favourite songs or pieces of music. It's not what the musician or singer intended it to mean. It's what it means to you.

...not necessarily that important to literary critics perhaps.

It's a strange situation when someone sinks a huge chunk of their life into producing a work of art and then someone else comes along and in one sweep declares the author's intent unimportant and puts a load of different meaning into the work.
If it's the case that author's intent is unimportant and that it's up to the reader to come up with meaning I'm not sure why anyone bothers putting an author's name on a book or praising a particular author as better than another. In short Author ABC is seen as good because Critic XYZ can put their own meaning into their work. If that's the case, criticism becomes the creative art while the author merely provides a vehicle for criticism. Almost like the author is a car maker and the critic is the star race driver.

Personally I don't see it.

BigShot wrote:...not necessarily that important to literary critics perhaps.

It's a strange situation when someone sinks a huge chunk of their life into producing a work of art and then someone else comes along and in one sweep declares the author's intent unimportant and puts a load of different meaning into the work.
If it's the case that author's intent is unimportant and that it's up to the reader to come up with meaning I'm not sure why anyone bothers putting an author's name on a book or praising a particular author as better than another. In short Author ABC is seen as good because Critic XYZ can put their own meaning into their work. If that's the case, criticism becomes the creative art while the author merely provides a vehicle for criticism. Almost like the author is a car maker and the critic is the star race driver.

Personally I don't see it.

I didn't say that authorial intention is unimportant, just that it's not the be all and end all. It's about different ways of looking at things. My English Literature teacher compared it to changing spectacles - you might notice something using one critical approach that you might miss with another, and vice versa.

The point you make about the critic being the star race driver clearly isn't true. If it were, why would authors like Emily Bronte, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen etc. be so well known and critics such as Harold Bloom and Stephen Greenblatt be relatively unheard of? There is obviously a limit to criticism as it has to be based on the text itself. Authors are also successful because of their universally acknowledged skill in using language and literary forms.

That said, you're free to react to literature, magic performances, etc. however you want to. What I was saying is that I personally I didn't like Piff's performance. That doesn't mean I'm right, or that it was bad. It's just my opinion, but I've tried to explain why I think as I do.

Back on the subject of Buzzcocks, I laughed SO hard at the Moby question!