Go to the Cafe or any other forum, and ask people what they think magic is all about, or what magic should be about, and you'll get interesting answers. Observe these answers and you'll see that they frequently fall into two camps based around Yin and Yang. There are performers who believe it's all about entertainment, about making sure people have a good time, about making the magic beautiful-looking, etc. These are Yin thinkers. Then, you'll get performers who aim for conviction and want the impossibility to register. These are Yang thinkers. I personally subscribe (as you might be able to tell from the fact that I've quoted it three times earlier) to the following view, that Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin. I believe that if you place too much stock in Yang, your magic risks being empty, and if you place too much stock in Yin, your magic risks being weak and unconvincing. Obviously there is some leeway, and one can lean one way or the other, perhaps even switching back and forth over the course of a show. Still, I think an overall unwavering discrepancy of one over the other can create a feeling of predictability at best, and monotony at worst. What's more, I think that if people were to acknowledge these two forces and see how they strengthen each other, rather than combat against each other, you'd see a lot of dumb magic theory arguments go away.
On the adage "Don't run when you're not being chased" I think this is indicative of a situation in which the performer wants to inject Yang when he should be content to stick with the Yin. The audience is perfectly content with the presentation as it unfolds, and the performer, out of guilt, wants to resolidify Yang where it's not needed. This can lead to a distraction and a tipping off of the presence of method unnecessarily. One thing that's worth noting, though, is that an effect can change over time, starting with Yin and moving into Yang simply by virtue of repetition. Also, some performers have even stated a preference of wanting to elicit spectators into chasing. The Scientist archetype, for instance, would consider it a failure if he didn't convince somebody of an effect under the highest scrutiny.
Billy McComb had an intriguing idea that you can really only kill an audience once per show. I'm curious about whether or not this can fall into the Yin Yang model. My first impression is that, if he'd been given this model as a way to rephrase the idea, that the final performance would be slightly heavier on the Yang. The reason why I think this is that so many of the blatantly Yin-favoured effects -- such as Paper Balls Over The Head, or else Tommy Wonderish failureffects, or else Penn & Teller exposure-based effects -- could not end a show. It would simply be too much of a deflation. People are drawn to a bold claim, and one thing a bold claim does is after tickling the Yin, bringing about interest in the Yang -- Can he come through on this claim? Is the evidence going to say that he really did it? What's more, a bold claim also relinquishes the element of surprise, which puts them on alert and demands better proofs in order to gain conviction.
Many archetypes quite obviously lean towards one or the other, and I think this is natural. However, I don't know where the Gambling Demonstrator lies in this duality. On the one hand, being able to cheat at cards is a feat heavy in meaning and significance, but on the other, conviction is frequently a part of the equation, as he's constantly reinforcing his claim to power as being legitimate. So, right now, dunno.
If there is a weakness in this model, it's that the Yin embodies many things that are present in other forms of theater, and as such strong Yin is insufficient to show what we feel is magic. Harry Potter movies, for instance, are full of Yin, but have absolutely no Yang because the question of whether or not anything people see is real is dismissed outright as irrelevant. I suppose one could turn around and say there that having all Yang and no Yin means that either you're showing a feat with no theatrical context, which would lean towards Charlatanry if we're talking about impossible-seeming feats. Or, alternately, there's not even art in it, since one can attain complete conviction in something that has nothing to do with art or magic -- isn't this what is done in courtroom trials all the time, the presentation of evidence to support a theory?
More later as I think of them...
2 comments:
Your last paragraph illustrates what I think underlies the debates read at the Café. It’s a question of, Is Magic by itself entertaining? The Yang camp believes it is, the Yin not so much, and each camp’s beliefs show in their performance. Many of the Yins only want a laugh. They should be comedians and get it over with. The Yangs should be sleight instructors, their performance lacks. Those that have a balance, Mr. Haydn for example, give a fine performance. There is so much more going into a good performance than many realize.
Interesting post. I have an issue with the "Don't run when you're not being chased" analogy though. I've always thought it is an empty phrase, most often bandied about by hobby magicians with no real performance experience. I have many reasons for thinking this, but I think examples (far from magic, moving closer) are the best way to illustrate:
Counter-example 1: Fire Drills. No, you aren't actually "running" but you are evacuating when there is no fire. The reasons are so obvious that I won't get into them.
Counter-example 2: Training of any kind. Any time you engage in any sort of training, a portion of it will entail "here's what to do just in case . Again, the reasons should be so obvious as to not require explanation.
Counter-example 3: Murphy's law. What can go wrong will go wrong. When practicing magic, for example, what do you do when you lose that card you controlled, or somebody grabs the deck to shuffle, etc.? Sure, amateurs will say you need better audience management but when you are performing for dozens of tables every night, this will happen. You had better know what you will do.
So, again, you don't always have to run when you aren't being chased, but you sure as hell better know where the emergency exits are. You should be prepared to "run" at any point. To do less is to demonstrate you don't perform in real life and that you don't even care whether your trick is resolved successfully.
It's neither Ying nor Yang, as defined here, it's both. You need to know what to do in case of a problem whether your goal is being "bulletproff" or to be "entertaining".
As such, "Don't run when you're not being chased" is both meaningless and a very dangerous comment as it simply encourages mediocrity.
Post a Comment