View Full Version : Magic: Art versus Entertainment
18th December 2004, 07:17 PM
I will save my opinion for later.
EDIT to add:
Argh, the last option -- "mostly entertainment" -- seems to me as an indisputable empricial fact. But I'm asking each individual's opinion, not your description of the popular view.
Define "art" and "entertainment" in your reply.
19th December 2004, 01:48 AM
I don't think magic is inherently any of them. A performance may be art, or entertainment, or both. It can also easily be neither. There are performers who are artists and can't entertain their way out of of a paper bag. There are others who can entertain with very simple tricks- which likely means it's not going to be art.
And any given performer may be an entertainer and/or an artist in one performance and a boring slip-shod trickster in another.
You might as well ask if painting is art or employment. If you're Rembrandt or Picasso it was usually art. If you paint houses for a living it's employment.
So there is really no valid answer unless applied to at least a specific magician/performer and even better if applied to a specific performance.
19th December 2004, 04:41 PM
I've become very interested in magic lately, and I think that it's an art, thought like most art, there are varying degrees of artfulness.
When I look at something like Scotch and Soda, the art is in the original idea for such a thing, rather than the performance. A particularly good performance would of course be art as well, but I'm much more intrigued by the idea.
Now the problem with the poll is whether there's a difference between art and entertainment, or if art simply a form of entertainment.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.