talkmagic.co.uk

Doug Henning was dressed in a 'modern' way at the time.....

So was Robert Houdin. His wearing of a regular tail coat was considered a huge departure from the volumous robes of the past. The truth is there is no modern or traditional style. We all opt, as always, for a style which suits us. Just like they did a hundred years ago.

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many answers.

Thanks for the ideas so far - To be honest, this was the reason I was asking the question, because I'm struggling to find a significant difference between the two types (if there is any).

The problem being that none of my group I'm working with know anything about magic, and so it was agreed that my original idea (looking at the art behind magic) was impossible to present through video - I still don't think it is but I'll save that for another day. This new idea came along and a quick Google search presented no results which was a good (bad?) start - you decide.

Now from a simple point of view, I can't see the difference and neither can the majority of you.
The only difference I can really see is the showmanship, so to speak, Caridini was much more of a gentlemen as opposed to the new modern cardists which seems to be more 'urban/grungey' I guess. The only other person I can think of who takes on a similar 'gentlemen theme' is Lance Burton.

The problem I'm having is this - we're gonna have to go out and interview real magicians and ask them what they think the difference is, now I personally don't believe it's going to be all that successful because of issues people have already noted above.

Although saying that, if anyone's in the Portsmouth/Southampton area and was up for such a thing, let me know as it'd be great to get some pre-prepared answers!

The 'traditional' image of a magician with top hat, tails, bow tie etc was also quite revolutionary when it was first used. Prior to that it was Oriental/Egyptian/Indian personas which ruled. Many magic shows contained a lot of chatter and interaction with/lecturing to the audiences which these days would be seen as very slow going nw we're used to the faster style of presenting illusions. All things change but the basic concepts are still very much as Reggie Scott wrote about them over 400 years ago!

I have to wonder just how many of us consider OURSELVES, when performing, as being either 'traditional' or 'modern'?

I'm willing to bet my false hip that very few would see themselves as 'traditional', unless it's very strictly by design - certainly, even back in my personal heyday (yeah, yeah, I'm sooooo old now!!) whilst my stage costume conformed to black suit and bow tie, there was an abundance of sequins and holographic materials (some of my cumerbunds were hideous in the extreme!) - yes...I was still MODERN!!

The problem is that for your project to work and be interesting you need to define "the conflicts between traditional and modern magic". There are many ways of dividing the two (traditional/modern). You can do it along straight magician date lines - anything pre-Scott, pre-Houdin, pre-Devant, pre-Henning, pre-Daniels, pre-Blaine, pre-Ponta, whatever. Or you could define 'modern' as 20th century onwards, or Television onwards, or Vaudeville onwards, or Enlightenment onwards. Or you could classify it by the type of character and/or claims made - if you claim it's real magic, then you're "traditional", wheras if you make no such claim, you're "modern". The problem is, this makes Hocus Pocus (the 1600s magician) and Heron of Alexandria modern and Blaine traditional.
Since that's not helpful, I'll make a stab at a definition of "modern" and "traditional" magic.

Modern: There is no 'magic', it's all chicanery. The magician probably dresses like the best-dressed members of the audience. The audience (and they are an audience, rather than victims/subjects/followers) are familiar with the form of theater we call "magic". The magician may involve the audience in a discussion about magical methods (i.e. chicanery) without necessarily giving away the methods in use.
Traditional: There is magic, and you're looking at it. The magician probably claims supernatural powers. The 'magic' may not necessarily be a theatrical performance, it might be a seance, reading or similar, or even a game on the street. There is no discussion of actual methods, only claims of powers/spirits/artefacts, although even these may be absent. There are 'magical' methods (sleight of hand, psychology, illusion principles) applied, possibly but not necessarily in a theatrical context, with no 'wink' to say it isn't real. If you feel the need to avoid annoying people who genuinely believe in the supernatural, you could say that you're only talking about those nasty scam artists, not the "real" mediums.

Examples of magicians fitting "modern" : Jean-Eugene Robert-Houdin. David Devant. Jasper Maskelyne. Dai Vernon. Penn and Teller, Paul Daniels, Derren Brown, David Blaine, Criss Angel. Reginald Scot (although the book doesn't say anything about him performing). "Hocus Pocus".
Examples of magicians fitting "traditional": Houdini. Indian Fakirs (there are some good links on some skeptic web sites). "Erik Jan Hanussen". Any street psychic/faith healer/medium. Derren Brown, David Blaine, Criss Angel. Any three-card monte/shell game scam artist. Most confidence men.

You might disagree with these definitions, but for the purposes of the project, it then sets up a meaty debate about the Enlightenment, skepticism, science and the conflict between "there are no spirits" versus "there are spirits, and they want me to talk to someone in the audience whose name begins with D". Seems to me the point of the project is to draw a clear line and then show the differences; these definitions do that. There Is No Magic, versus I Have Special Powers.

I include Erik Jan Hanussen and Jasper Maskelyne because there's an interesting WWII diversion there, with a 'modern' allied magician versus a 'traditional' axis magician, although they both step over the definitions to the other side, and there are tons of examples of both on both sides. Also, most material that's been written about both of them has been subject to controversy though, so be a bit careful if you're following that up. But, (reportedly) making a battleship disappear, and creatively using camouflage in a war is just an interesting story, as is doing readings for senior members of the Nazi party.

It's probably also worth mentioning Robert-Houdin's magic in Africa, especially the bullet catch, infinite ammunition production and light/heavy chest (or, stealing the strength from a man). Since these show a modern magician using traditional methods, in the interesting and unusual context of a diplomatic mission. Again, this is controversial and these stories may have been totally fabricated.

So, ultra-modern mentalists (no 'wink') would be traditional. Arguably the point where 'modern' magic really begins is "the discoverie of witchcraft", but that book also has a whole bunch of supposed "real" magic in it.

Actually performing a 'modern' effect and a 'traditional' effect might be a good idea, and could set your project apart from the others. Good luck with it all.

Each period and style of Magic is really of--its time.
What was wonderful and effecive in such and such a period MAY not be effective now
And what was effective NOW MAY not have gone over --THEN.

Basically it all boils down to
Good (charismatic) Performers
Bad (rubbish) performers
Good presentations
Bad Presentations
Fit the Magic and the style to WHAT the audience expects.

Similarly, in the Theatre--there are really no such things as Big Roles & a Small Roles
There are only good actors and bad actors

A good actor will take any role and perform it well.
A bad actor can be given the best written roles in the world and perform them--badly


Allen Tipton

I truly feel that being a good magician has never changed and never will.
Magic tricks with new technologies, electronics, computers is always changing.
The two don't neceserally go together.
Ronny

Magician perform a lot of people nowadays are more skills and knowledge and skilled, will not buy the same explanation, they also know that it's a move, how you can do.