| Author | Post |
|---|
erlandish
Wizard
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 03:30 |
|
It seems the theory debate keeps popping up on threads that are not really devoted to it, so I figure it must be time to give it its own place.
Alright, let's keep it straightforward. State how important you think magic theory to be, and then say why.
Personally, I think an understanding of theory in any art form is fundamental, and the fact that magic lacks a unified theory is a large problem that needs correcting. Even if we cannot come to a concensus on whether or not to use cancelling methods or whatnot, at the very least there ought to be some reason for why it would be superior to, for instance, use cancelling methods in an ACR rather than just merely repeating the tilt move over and over again. Somewhere in that difference there should lie the groundwork that should help us develop a unified theory.
Whit Haydn once mentioned in a thread on the Magic Cafe about how we as magicians are so ignorant of our art that we can't even define our terms properly, and that sometimes non-magicians have a clearer idea of what a "magician" is than we do (they have no problem shifting between four different definitions, whereas we stumble over them endlessly). This lack of concensus about terms is another thing that needs fixing.
Any thoughts?
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 06:11 |
|
erlandish wrote:
It seems the theory debate keeps popping up on threads that are not really devoted to it, so I figure it must be time to give it its own place.
Alright, let's keep it straightforward. State how important you think magic theory to be, and then say why.
Personally, I think an understanding of theory in any art form is fundamental, and the fact that magic lacks a unified theory is a large problem that needs correcting. Even if we cannot come to a concensus on whether or not to use cancelling methods or whatnot, at the very least there ought to be some reason for why it would be superior to, for instance, use cancelling methods in an ACR rather than just merely repeating the tilt move over and over again. Somewhere in that difference there should lie the groundwork that should help us develop a unified theory.
Whit Haydn once mentioned in a thread on the Magic Cafe about how we as magicians are so ignorant of our art that we can't even define our terms properly, and that sometimes non-magicians have a clearer idea of what a "magician" is than we do (they have no problem shifting between four different definitions, whereas we stumble over them endlessly). This lack of concensus about terms is another thing that needs fixing.
Any thoughts?
I think a unified theory would be ridiculous for magic. Where do you think new ideas come from? They come from new ways of thinking. Magic is an art there are no rules to art. If there were everyones paintings would look alike. How boring would that be. I feel there are no wrong ways of thinking when it comes to magic. If you can make it work by thinking different then you are a helping the art of magic to grow. Rules would stunt the growth of magic or any art. As artists magic is very personal to each and everyone of us. You will never get magicians as a whole to agree on a unified theory. It's pointless.
|
TylerErickson
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 801 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 06:57 |
|
A question for any who are going to participate in this discussion:
What books have you read on theory? If we are going to discuss validity, I think we should pick a source to use as an example. My personal vote goes toward The Books of Wonder.
If you have read them, I would love to discuss some the theories Mr. Wonder puts forth. As I mentioned in a different thread, his thinking had an immense impact on the my development.
If you haven't read them (and that is a shame, as I think they truely are beautiful books), I will kick out a couple of quotes from the first essay in the first book, entitled "The Limitations of Theory." (Catchy title, no?)
Some may say that theory, nice as it may be, doesn't contribute significantly to the development of a good performer. In support of this they point to many such performers who never practiced theoretical analysis. Indeed some fine magicians have never formally studied the theories behind their work, but rely on some instinctive feeling for what is right for them and what is not.
There are also magicians who study and study, who know a great deal about the theories of magic, but when they apply these theories in their performances they fail to achieved the great magic for which they hoped. From all this one could draw the conclusion that theory seems to contribute little or nothing to the making of a better performer.
I copy this in the interests of bypassing the discussion that seems to appear with increasing frequency, portraying any attempt to discuss theory as a pointless venture.
These books are considered by some to be the best of their kind, yet the very first page addresses the concerns of those who fear the chronic theoretician, dogmatically flinging his rules of conduct on innocent bystanders.
As you may have guessed, Mr. Wonder goes on to point out the virtues of theory. The way in which he does so is perhaps its own kind of magic.
Thoughts?
T
|
RajeshLGov
Sorcerer
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 306 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 07:19 |
|
"
Magic is art for the viewer/perceiver & science for the performer."
The theory behind any science was written after practical experiments for the future student/analyst/user.
When people started painting they experimented with different colours to know the result of a particular combination. Then they theorised that VIBGYOR when mixed gives you white, white & black grey, yellow & red orange etc... This theory has definitely saved new users time otherwise spent on experimentation.This stage is science.
It is however the individuals decision to choose how much of a colour he would use & what is the outcome he is targeting. This level is the Art.
I hope you understand what I want to communicate, being the lazy fellow that I'm, 'll stop typing now. Best Wishes.
Last edited on 05-10-2007 07:24 by RajeshLGov
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 07:20 |
|
TylerErickson wrote:
A question for any who are going to participate in this discussion:
What books have you read on theory? If we are going to discuss validity, I think we should pick a source to use as an example. My personal vote goes toward The Books of Wonder.
If you have read them, I would love to discuss some the theories Mr. Wonder puts forth. As I mentioned in a different thread, his thinking had an immense impact on the my development.
If you haven't read them (and that is a shame, as I think they truely are beautiful books), I will kick out a couple of quotes from the first essay in the first book, entitled "The Limitations of Theory." (Catchy title, no?)
Some may say that theory, nice as it may be, doesn't contribute significantly to the development of a good performer. In support of this they point to many such performers who never practiced theoretical analysis. Indeed some fine magicians have never formally studied the theories behind their work, but rely on some instinctive feeling for what is right for them and what is not.
There are also magicians who study and study, who know a great deal about the theories of magic, but when they apply these theories in their performances they fail to achieved the great magic for which they hoped. From all this one could draw the conclusion that theory seems to contribute little or nothing to the making of a better performer.
I copy this in the interests of bypassing the discussion that seems to appear with increasing frequency, portraying any attempt to discuss theory as a pointless venture.
These books are considered by some to be the best of their kind, yet the very first page addresses the concerns of those who fear the chronic theoretician, dogmatically flinging his rules of conduct on innocent bystanders.
As you may have guessed, Mr. Wonder goes on to point out the virtues of theory. The way in which he does so is perhaps its own kind of magic.
Thoughts?
T
As Tommy's statements point out not everyone is prone to using theories. I think if you are then you will be drawn to Tommy's books. My pointless statement was referring to a unified theory not to theories in general. They are usefull to some.
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 07:39 |
|
RajeshLGov wrote:
"
Magic is art for the viewer/perceiver & science for the performer."
The theory behind any science was written after practical experiments for the future student/analyst/user.
When people started painting they experimented with different colours to know the result of a particular combination. Then they theorised that VIBGYOR when mixed gives you white, white & black grey, yellow & red orange etc... This theory has definitely saved new users time otherwise spent on experimentation.This stage is science.
It is however the individuals decision to choose how much of a colour he would use & what is the outcome he is targeting. This level is the Art.
I hope you understand what I want to communicate, being the lazy fellow that I'm, 'll stop typing now. Best Wishes.
The mixing of colors is science. Theories are a way of thinking so it is susceptible to anyones interpretation. I think we will all agree that yello and blue make green.
|
TylerErickson
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 801 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 07:40 |
|
Boqin wrote:
My pointless statement was referring to a unified theory not to theories in general.
I don't know if a unified theory is possible, nor to I wish to try to make a case for such a thing being necessary, so we can agree on the fruitless nature of THAT discussion.
But, if we are going to discuss the merits of theories in general, I think would be extremely helpful if we had specifics to draw from. (i.e. The Books of Wonder)
Have you read either of them?
T
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 07:45 |
|
TylerErickson wrote:
Boqin wrote:
My pointless statement was referring to a unified theory not to theories in general.
I don't know if a unified theory is possible, nor to I wish to try to make a case for such a thing being necessary, so we can agree on the fruitless nature of THAT discussion.
But, if we are going to discuss the merits of theories in general, I think would be extremely helpful if we had specifics to draw from. (i.e. The Books of Wonder)
Have you read either of them?
T
Thats a funny statement. You want to discuss the merits of theories in "general" but you would like to talk "specifically" about Tommy's theories. Cute. 
I think a separate thread singling out Tommy's theories is in order then.Last edited on 05-10-2007 07:49 by gone
|
TylerErickson
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 801 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:03 |
|
Boqin wrote:
You want to discuss the merits of theories in "general" but you would like to talk "specifically" about Tommy's theories. Cute.
I'll take that as a "no."
Would you be willing to read them?
T
|
erlandish
Wizard
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:13 |
|
The idea that art has no rules is an unfortunate comment usually made by people who've never dedicated themselves to the study of art forms.
Let's start at the beginning. If I pick up an apple and throw it at a wall and it splashes everywhere, I think we can all agree that I haven't just written a novel. Therefore there is something in the definition of fiction that precludes such an action from qualifying it as fiction. On the other hand, that same splatter might qualify to some as a painting, with loose definitions of paint, canvas, and the applications of chaos.
If art truly has no rules, then my smushed apple qualifies as a novel. So let's dump that "art has no rules" argument straight away.
The question of the usefullness of a unified theory isn't so much to find a bunch of dogmatic rules that everybody must apply to their magic. It's instead to figure out what exactly is magic and what makes it different from other art forms, while still remaining as an art form. That said, even that idea of a bunch of dogmatic rules can still be helpful, since most heavy theorists are aware not only of those rules they think are useful, but also the exceptions to those rules and what it is that makes those exceptions work. It isn't impossible for a unified theory to take exceptions to the rule into account.
A parallel example. If we look at narrative art, then we MUST look at the idea of plotting. Early on in a writer's career they're going to have to come to terms with the concept of putting a plot together. Later, when they understand the rule, they can find a way to break it, but you have to know why you're breaking it, and what effect that can have on the audience, both positive and negative. You have to find out other ways of making the readers turn the page.
A unified systematic theory can also be inclusive, rather than exclusive. For instance, Dai Vernon said that "A big motion covers a small motion." Tommy Wonder, understanding the theory behind that principle, was able to expand upon it, showing that it doesn't have to be limited to big and small, but that motivated actions can allow the opposite, for the small motion to cover the big motion. Nobody is saying that you have to do EITHER in your magic act, but understanding this theory gives you options, and it means you don't just have to rely on cover in order to conceal a move. Theory, far from being limiting, is actually very liberating, and if you've seen Tommy Wonder's theories in action you'll have to admit that he's definitely on to something.
If the whole concept of an all-encompassing theory to magic is ridiculous, why is it such an interest to guys like Whit Haydn, Darwin Ortiz and Arturo Ascanio? Are they ridiculous too?
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:21 |
|
TylerErickson wrote:
Boqin wrote:
You want to discuss the merits of theories in "general" but you would like to talk "specifically" about Tommy's theories. Cute.
I'll take that as a "no."
Would you be willing to read them?
T
Hmmm? ....a book on theory? You are aware of who you are talking to. Correct?
Can't say that I have time to devote to those. I already have things waiting for my attention. A book on theory would be way down the list.
|
TylerErickson
Wizard
| Joined: | 08-15-2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 801 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:29 |
|
Would I be safe in guessing that you have never read a book on theory?
T
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:42 |
|
erlandish wrote:
The idea that art has no rules is an unfortunate comment usually made by people who've never dedicated themselves to the study of art forms.
Let's start at the beginning. If I pick up an apple and throw it at a wall and it splashes everywhere, I think we can all agree that I haven't just written a novel. Therefore there is something in the definition of fiction that precludes such an action from qualifying it as fiction. On the other hand, that same splatter might qualify to some as a painting, with loose definitions of paint, canvas, and the applications of chaos.
If art truly has no rules, then my smushed apple qualifies as a novel. So let's dump that "art has no rules" argument straight away.
The question of the usefullness of a unified theory isn't so much to find a bunch of dogmatic rules that everybody must apply to their magic. It's instead to figure out what exactly is magic and what makes it different from other art forms, while still remaining as an art form. That said, even that idea of a bunch of dogmatic rules can still be helpful, since most heavy theorists are aware not only of those rules they think are useful, but also the exceptions to those rules and what it is that makes those exceptions work. It isn't impossible for a unified theory to take exceptions to the rule into account.
A parallel example. If we look at narrative art, then we MUST look at the idea of plotting. Early on in a writer's career they're going to have to come to terms with the concept of putting a plot together. Later, when they understand the rule, they can find a way to break it, but you have to know why you're breaking it, and what effect that can have on the audience, both positive and negative. You have to find out other ways of making the readers turn the page.
A unified systematic theory can also be inclusive, rather than exclusive. For instance, Dai Vernon said that "A big motion covers a small motion." Tommy Wonder, understanding the theory behind that principle, was able to expand upon it, showing that it doesn't have to be limited to big and small, but that motivated actions can allow the opposite, for the small motion to cover the big motion. Nobody is saying that you have to do EITHER in your magic act, but understanding this theory gives you options, and it means you don't just have to rely on cover in order to conceal a move. Theory, far from being limiting, is actually very liberating, and if you've seen Tommy Wonder's theories in action you'll have to admit that he's definitely on to something.
If the whole concept of an all-encompassing theory to magic is ridiculous, why is it such an interest to guys like Whit Haydn, Darwin Ortiz and Arturo Ascanio? Are they ridiculous too?
Whats ridiculous about it is everyone looks at it differently. You are not going to have everyone agree on one unifying theory. WE don't even agree in the small community of this forum. What do you think your effect would be on the entire magic community. Lets say we got everyone to agree. How would that make magic better? Personally I love that everyone thinks so different. I am constantly looking for ways of looking at things differently then anyone has before. This is where breakthroughs come from, inovative thinking, new ideas. When someone tries to push a certain way of thinking on me I head the other way. I surround myself with people that aren't afraid of looking at something differently or even the wrong way can bring inspiration.
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:47 |
|
TylerErickson wrote:
Would I be safe in guessing that you have never read a book on theory?
T
You seem to be making this thread very personal Tyler. I have read some. Lets get back to the topic please.
|
gone
Magician
| Joined: | 11-30-1999 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 05-10-2007 08:49 |
|
| I think I am perfectly qualified to talk about theory in general which is what this thread is about.
|
Current time is 22:55 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
|
|