Reflections IV
November 2000

Number Four

The Art and Meaning of Magic

I have been spending a great deal of time researching, studying and thinking about two aspects of our avocation – the art of magic and the meaning of magic. As I dug into these matters, I found myself exploring "the manner with which" I perform – about how I do what I do as well as the kind of space I am creating with/for my audience.

Starting with the first area of inquiry - Is Magic Art? – writers like Maskelyne, Devant, Sharpe and Nelms would argue yes, but not in all performances. These writers would contend that magic has the potential for being art. R.G. Collingwood’s thinking in his philosophical journey into aesthetics, Principles of Art, would probably state that it is a craft. While I will not labor this conclusion by citing Collingwood’s reasoning, I feel that it maps back onto the hierarchy of art proposed by Maskelyne in Our Magic and later expanded by S.H. Sharpe in Neo Magic Artistry.

In Our Magic, Maskelyne outlined three levels of art: False Art, Normal Art and High Art. S.H. Sharpe began here and re-formulated the three levels into four: False Art, Formal Art, Naturalistic Art, and Imaginative Art. It can be debated that adding Naturalist Art is simply "splitting hairs" where hairs need not be split, but the three other levels of Sharpe’s map perfectly onto Maskelyne’s.

Lets delve into each one of the three matching levels, from "top" to "bottom:"

  • Imaginative or High Art "Imaginative Art imitates the imagination and in this degree, all creators of truly original conjuring effects must be classed." (S.H. Sharpe) "…a kind of art which imitates things imagined by the artist." (N. Maskelyne) By definition, this rules out 99 9/10% of us. Even if you have the skills and abilities to create your own effects, one needs to get past the qualifying phrase, "truly original conjuring effects." At this stage in magic’s evolution, it’s difficult, if not improbable, that one can create truly original conjuring effects. Most of the effects we do or see do not fall into this category.
  • Formal or Normal Art
    Formal Art is where we should aspire to fall. Formal Art is built on convention or formula. Sharpe describes it as: "He (the performer) must put himself into his work and therefore, bound to be, to some extent, original." The Formal Artist relies on others for his working material or the foundations of his material. Maskelyne explains it in greater detail:

"…the work done by a normal artist in magic will fall within one of three categories, which may be outlined as follows: 1. The use of familiar methods, in a familiar combination, to produce a familiar effect, but with some originality in presentation. 2. The use of familiar methods, in a novel form of combination, to produce a familiar effect, the manner of presentation displaying some originality. 3. The use of familiar methods, in any form of combination, to produce a novel effect, the presentation of which must necessarily possess more or less originality."

If, for example, a conjurer is performing the cups and balls, he puts his own stamp on the routine, not simply reproducing the Ammar or Vernon routine.
  • False Art
    Using the example above, False Art is reproducing the Ammar or Vernon routine. False Art is the reproduction or mimicry. The performer, on a conscious or unconscious level, is reproducing the Formal or Imaginative Art of another. Maskelyne is the hardest on those who fall into this level, calling them copyists and saying that "any weakling may be taught how to do that kind of thing; and, having learned his lesson, may earn an income equivalent to the value of a weakling’s work."

In feeling my way through this hierarchy, I asked myself the question – At what level am I performing? My answer was that my performances are at the Formal or Normal level, but I did find instances (effects) where I fell into False Art. In those cases, I am evoking the spirit of the originator too closely. If I wish to still perform these effects, my work is cut out for me to make them mine.

It is quite easy to fall into the False Art level, especially if you truly admire the original performer and have watched them perform the effect repeatedly. This is my fear of students of magic (young or old) relying heavily on video learning for their sole source of instruction. Watching Darryl, Ammar, Roth or (insert your favorite magician with a video here) repeatedly to learn an effect, you cannot not begin to mimic them. But if you shift, or supplement, your instructional source towards books and manuscripts, you begin to involve yourself more deeply in the learning process. As you struggle with the explanation, the placement of your hands or fingers, or the turn of your body with the prop, you will develop a feel and, subsequently, a presentation that is all your own.

To be continued….

F.G. Turner

i Collingwood, R.G., The Principles of Art, Oxford University Press, New York, 1938
ii Maskelyne, Nevil and Devant, David, Our Magic, Fleming Book Company, Berkeley Heights, 1946
iii Sharpe, S.H., Neo Magic Artistry, The Miracle Factory, Seattle, 2000 (Originally published as Neo Magic in 1932)
Your Opinion Matters!
Tell Us What You Think in the
"Reflections Discussion Forum"