Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #1 

The term "paradigm shift" was used (maybe invented) by Thomas Kuhn in the '60s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." At the time, the concept as applied to scientific revolutions e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian revolutions, was a new way to think about history. 

Historians had often thought about history as being "driven" by "great people." In that view, Newton and Einstein were focal points. Whereas Kuhn viewed revolutions as coming from what might be called "the spirit of the times." He pointed out that simultaneous, independent discoveries/inventions were the rule rather than the exception. Newton's invention of the calculus is a good example. Gottfried Leibniz independently invented calculus around the same time that Newton did.  Newton and Leibniz had an ongoing priority dispute throughout their lives.

I see Paul Harris as a Newton or Einstein. I think there was certainly a "paradigm shift" with Harris. There's magic before Harris and magic after Harris. Harris showed us that we had been thinking "inside a box" and he blew the lid off that box. That's what a paradigm shift does. Aristotle = things fall to the earth because the center of the earth is the center of the universe and objects naturally seek the center of the universe. Newton = masses exert a force on each other. The earth and an object mutually pull on each other. He gave us the formula. Einstein = object don't exert forces on each other. Mass curves space and things follow the shortest distance between two point in curved space. 2000 years of thinking like Aristotle, then Newton comes along and blows Aristotelian thinking about physics out the window.

We haven’t had a real revolution in science since Einstein. Relativity still works and there aren’t any real contenders for an alternative. People have tried, but Einstein is still here.

So the question is: Has there been any paradigm shift since Harris? Thanks to Paul, we are now thinking outside of the old box. But, undoubtedly were in a different box and when you’re in a box, it’s practically impossible to see the box. It just seems to be the normal order of things. 

The internet has been revolutionary and has provided a new way to find things and to interact. The internet could be seen as a paradigm shift in how we communicate. It may provide the means for another paradigm shift in magic.

Has there been a paradigm shift since PH? What other “great people” were doing cool things around the time that Harris broke out. Was Harris a consequence of the “spirit of the times?”

“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’

And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’”

Mike

0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #2 
Mike, you are right--Paul Harris was a massive shift and he had an enormous effect on magic. Maybe Derek Dingle did something similar but not as revolutionary with his multiple surprise endings. Paul's effects and methods are what mattered not how they were disseminated so I think the internet is not that important--if anything, it dilutes the scene because there is so much garbage floating in its digital sea. I don't see any new shifts but maybe I don't know what water is.
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #3 
I view PH as an outlier, but not as defined by Malcom Gladwell. Instead I see PH as a one-in-a-million who came along, saw things through different filters, and acted on what he saw. He shook us up. He made us think. He made us mad. He moved us forward, even though that wasn't his intent. Or was it?

The zeitgeist of the 70s and 80s was a mixture of the strange and the profane, wasn't it? From the tumultuous 60s sprang a new order, or perhaps disorder is a better descriptor. Paul was, without a doubt, the product of his times - aren't we all? - but he embraced the times, hugged them close, gave them wings, and sent them out to the rest of us. Be silly. Be goofy. Accept your awkwardness and use it to your advantage. Own your eccentric personality and share yourself with the world.

Since Paul (AP?) things have waxed and waned. I think that mentalism has undergone a paradigm shift in the last 20 or so years. It's gotten edgier, grittier, and more and more insidious in method and effect. Derren Brown has been instrumental of late, as has Richard Osterland, Doc Dixon, Luke Jermay, et al.  

David Blaine, a student/mentee of Paul's, shifted magic from the indoors to the outdoors and spawned what is still, I think, known as street magic. Like it or love it, it works for some and has changed what magic means to many. Blaine also expanded the limits of what it meant to be a magician, harkening back to those old days of live burials and other life-threatening stunts, but at the same time injecting them with a new energy though the mediums of television and the internet. 

Are these examples of paradigm shifts? Doubtful, but they certainly have contributed to current zeitgeist. And after all, did we really, fully, madly, deeply understand Paul's impact at the time he was cranking out Las Vegas Close-Up and Supermagic? Didn't it take a while for his real contribution to the art to kick in?

I think this is a GREAT topic for discussion, Mike, and look forward to hearing from others. I will have more to contribute once I have had more time to ruminate.

Av 
0
Robin Dawes

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,328
Reply with quote  #4 
Great question Mike!

You made clear distinctions between the world-models of Aristotle, Newton and Einstein.  Can you expand on your thoughts about how Harris changed magic so profoundly?  Would you draw a parallel between Harris's effect on magic and Dylan's effect on folk music?
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Dawes
Great question Mike!

You made clear distinctions between the world-models of Aristotle, Newton and Einstein.  Can you expand on your thoughts about how Harris changed magic so profoundly?  Would you draw a parallel between Harris's effect on magic and Dylan's effect on folk music?


Dylan? Don't you mean Guthrie? Dylan, Dion, Prine, et al, were all heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie. 

Av
0
Robin Dawes

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,328
Reply with quote  #6 
Nope, I mean Dylan.  I agree about Guthrie's influence on all the people you named, but Dylan made folk music hip, cool, wild and poetic in a way it had never been before.
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #7 
I can dig it, but sans Woody there would've likely been no Dylan, wouldn't you agree? Sort of like, without Doug Henning there likely wouldn't have been a David Copperfield? 

Av
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #8 
I think Dylan was a paradigm change. His innovation (which has been attributed to others) was putting poetry to music. That's an oversimplification, but it gets at what the shift was about. 

Anthony put his finger on the zeitgeist or "spirit of the times" for both Harris and Dylan and others. The '60s was about authenticity and questioning virtually everything, especially the "rules." It was inevitable that a Dylan or a Harris would come along. Similarly, calculus was "going to happen" in that time period. The groundwork had been laid. Newton and Leibniz were the great geniuses who formalized it into a coherent branch of mathematics. Also, necessity being the "mother of invention" (Zappa!), Newton needed calculus to formulate his physics. Newton stayed in the traditional framework of the times, though. His "Principia" was done in a geometric formulation. It's really difficult to follow. The geometry is very sophisticated. Way beyond what we did in HS.

Guthrie is to Dylan as  XXXXXX is to Harris? Dingle was mentioned. Others? 

Following Harris's lead were Sankey and Harkey IMO. We'll never know if they needed Harris's lead to produce their work or if they'd have been Harris had he not come before them. Kuhn would hypothesize that someone would have emerged to do what Harris did, had he not been there doing it. 

I'm not a mentalist, but it appears that Derren Brown might be the mentalist's Harris i.e. the game changer.

Looking around at what's going on in the arts today is mind boggling. Innovation is off the charts. But has there been a paradigm shift in other art forms?

Mike

0
Robin Dawes

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,328
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Vinson
I can dig it, but sans Woody there would've likely been no Dylan, wouldn't you agree? Sort of like, without Doug Henning there likely wouldn't have been a David Copperfield? 

Av


Completely agree.
0
Michaelblue

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,176
Reply with quote  #10 
Another thing about Paul Harris is that his writing is often funny and fun to read. You don't see that much.
0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #11 
I have it on good authority that it was Paul Harris who suggested to David Blaine the whole street magic context.
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #12 
I think the recent popularization of Poker (and Darwin Ortiz) has shifted the focus of many magicians to gambling related card magic. Few people know that Paul Chosse was a contributing factor. He absolutely NAILED Paul Harris with the DPS after Paul Harris told him he thought the slights weren't really useful in magic.
__________________
 
0
Stevie Ray Christian

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 449
Reply with quote  #13 
I believe we are in the midst of a Renaissance… Penn and Teller are serving as both Medeci and Michelangelo. They began decades ago, deconstructing the rusty dusty old thing. Because of their efforts, magic has never had greater exposure. This creates broader interest and therefore, more diversity.
I collected every Paul Harris book. I internalized those brilliant ideas… I embraced the weirdness. He was a game changer… Back in the day before the day when the game was still broadcast in black-and-white.
Today, we see a world of young men and women benefiting from the vast resources available to the curious.
There are plenty of burgeoning game-changers, with black belt chops and modern plots.
The flurry of talent, the quantity of information and the speed with which it is made available, may make it difficult to identify the next Svengalis. But I’m certain they’re out there.
0
Tom G

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 990
Reply with quote  #14 
Paul definitely wrote "different" magic books.  Every announcement in a flyer or magic magazine of a new book, required a 2 hour drive to Hank Lee's in Boston for the latest book. Getting one book cost me a ton of money.. car broke down in Boston on a Saturday morning, had it towed and then took a bus out days later to get it. But a new book from PH was worth it.  Paul had serious chops, like doing coin rolls with 2 coins in each hand at the same time.  Most of his videos didn't show his skills, bu they were there. When we were discussing up the ladder, his was so smooth and neat that I have never been able to duplicate it.  Much less other moves. While I own his AOA books, I would never get rid of the older original books.
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #15 
Stevie Ray - your analysis is succinct and dead on the money. Indeed we are in a Renaissance, one that extends to the arts in general and magic in particular IMO.

M
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #16 
A renaissance? I dunno. The Renaissance lasted for what, some 300 years, and was only evident when viewed through the lens of history. And if we are in the midst of a rebirth - and I am not downright denying the possibility, just expressing my skepticism - then where and when did it begin, do you think? 

I do believe, and can support with all sorts of lengthy, well-constructed  arguments, that we are in the midst of a transition as a species. It began with the onset of WWI, and continues through today. Carl Sagan referred to a period of adolescence, but associated it primarily with nuclear weapons. I agree with his use of the word, but as I said, believe it is far broader in scope.

But back to the topic at hand. The Renaissance, as I recall, had a lot to do with a return to the learnings of ancient Greece and Rome. If I am right about that, then is there an equivalent period or culture to which the magic world is turning for inspiration? Richard Kaufman recently announced another reissue of Great Magic, this one expanded to double the size of his last reprint. Is there any chance that some of today's younger magicians will order a copy and actually read it? Could it spur them on toward that paradigm shift Mike mentioned to kick off this thread?

Av 

   
0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #17 

"You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
--Harry Lime (Orson Welles), TheThird Man

0
Eddie H.

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #18 
I just finished reading Magic Is Dead by Ian Frisch. It seems to me he is saying we are currently in a shift and the internet and more importantly social media is the facilitator. Chris Ramsey has 2 million you tube followers and often puts out a couple videos per week. He's probably reaching more people in a month than many other stage and theater acts combined. I think the younger crowd who are technology natives (those who grew up with a keyboard/touchscreen) see silks, ropes and rings as puzzles and certainly bear no resemblance to everyday ordinary objects. To them it's the things like Doug McKenzie's cell phone effects that are modern magic and given the fact so many are instantly connected though social media I tend to agree with Frisch, we are currently in some sort of change.
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #19 
I'm not sure we're in a 300 year "rebirth" cycle as was the "Renaissance." Also, pre-modern times aren't analogous to the dark ages. I just suggested PH ushered in a "paradigm shift" as did Newton and Einstein. Separate from that, I am noticing that the arts in some general way are in a "golden age." Much ground breaking work is being done. I think, should historians adopt this view, that they will see the internet as the primary and maybe necessary catalyst for this "golden age" to occur. Fast computers, big data and AI will also be in the mix. Also, I think that the internet will dwarf the printing press as a pivotal moment in human history.
 
Futurists will prognosticate about the near future i.e. up to five years out. But when asked to guess what things will be like in 10 or 20 years, they shrug their shoulders? Who knows? Thinks are moving very quickly. If I make it to 92, I'll see the 20 year future. Maybe there will be another paradigm change in magic. I can't imagine what it would be. If I could, I'd be the one creating it. Who will be Newton's Einstein?

This sure is a lot of speculation on my part. But it's fun to speculate!

Mike
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie H.
I just finished reading Magic Is Dead by Ian Frisch. It seems to me he is saying we are currently in a shift and the internet and more importantly social media is the facilitator.


No doubt. The internet has had a tremendous impact on our art, as well as our culture and our species. Ass to its impact on magic, I agree with the assessment you describe. Younger magicians are learning almost entirely through the internet. Downloads, YouTube, ebooks and manuscripts, and countless other media that I, as a Baby Boomer, know nothing about. Many, including our own Harry Lorayne, lament this shift. I see it as inevitable. It's not all bad. In fact, there's a great deal of good to be found out there in the ethersphere. I'm doggie paddling in the mid-part of the pool myself and enjoying the experience. 

Av
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
I just suggested PH ushered in a "paradigm shift" as did Newton and Einstein. Separate from that, I am noticing that the arts in some general way are in a "golden age." Much ground breaking work is being done. I think, should historians adopt this view, that they will see the internet as the primary and maybe necessary catalyst for this "golden age" to occur. Fast computers, big data and AI will also be in the mix. Also, I think that the internet will dwarf the printing press as a pivotal moment in human history.

Maybe there will be another paradigm change in magic. I can't imagine what it would be. If I could, I'd be the one creating it. Who will be Newton's Einstein?

This sure is a lot of speculation on my part. But it's fun to speculate!


Yes, it is fun, isn't it! 

I like your suggestion that PH constituted the beginning, or perhaps even catalyst, of a paradigm shift. I think Doug Henning was involved as well. He eschewed the evening wear popularized by Robert-Houdin, and also nearly eliminated the fourth wall in his shows. He also wore his hair long, so naturally I dig Doug! [cool]

Yes, the internet will turn out to have been pivotal, and eclipse the printing press. Can you imagine what people 100 years from now will think when they learn that we were just learning to adapt to advanced technology. We will look more primitive to them that the people of the late 19th and early 20th centuries look to us!

Your question, "Who will be Newton's Einstein?" is brilliant! Who indeed? Are they alive already? It's possible...

Mike, from my perspective you are participating in the creative process that is, or is leading to, the next or current shift. I admire those of you who consistently create and share those creations with the rest of us.

Av 
0
Christensen

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #22 
Shin Lim has brought a new and different style of close-up card magic to the national scene (2 AGT Championships).
__________________
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where ninety percent of the crowd is trying to ruin it for themselves." -- Pete Holmes
0
Tom G

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 990
Reply with quote  #23 
At a lecture by Shin, he mentioned he learned mostly from Youtube, also that most of his stuff is designed for video.  But that said, he performed the act he won on P&T (?) and it looked good up close.  A lot of gaffs and lots of sleight of hand.
0
Intensely Magic

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 464
Reply with quote  #24 
I'm going to exercise a little Old Guy Privilege here. If you never saw PH perform and lecture, I think you will underweight his impact on magic. I've never been totally sure what a paradigm shift is, but he changed magic. I can think of no one in the past 60 years that had an impact even close to him.

I love Shim Lim and consider him the finest practitioner of a new type of magic I'll call Digital Close Up. I first saw this in DVDs put out by Bob Kohler of Shoot Ogawa and Apollo Robbins (I believe). he coin magic was incredible, but the angle of view was minimal. MAgic made for You Tube and other online media is a totally new discipline and has only the most minor connection to classic magic.

Just a couple of thoughts.

__________________
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. Arthur Conan Doyle

0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #25 
New styles don't count as paradigm shifts. Rap music, whether you like it or not, was something new. Shin Lim style, made for youtube, or digital magic as from Marco Tempest are new styles. But I don't think they represent paradigm shifts. On second thought, maybe they're like "mini paradigm shifts." They do "open the box we're in" a bit further. That's especially true for Marco. The "godfather" of the type of magic Marco T is doing might be Tony Chapek. Another innovator is Rudy Coby. 

However, I think these newer guys are still riding the Paul Harris "out of the box" thinking. Once PH blew the lid off, anything goes.

Anthony mentioned Doug Henning. I think he's one of the people in the lead up to PH. The zeitgeist was producing people like Henning and then PH - blam. There are always necessary predecessors to the one whose name is associated with the paradigm shift.

Mike
0
JohnnyNewYork

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 240
Reply with quote  #26 
Hello Forum Members! I just read this thread (actually, only portions of it since everyone’s responses fall in the “very deep food for thought” category — I’m planning on “circling back” later!). I am certainly not up to par with philosophical acumen that the above posters have demonstrated, but I’ll mention some ideas to consider. First, I think one could make an argument supporting the notion that the term “revelotionary” is a misnomer when applied to the creation, perception, and appreciation of ART forms, whatever they may be — in retrospect, everything that occurs in this area is the outcome of what has preceded it, and therefore, all historical developments in Art could be more accurately thought of as “evolutionary”. Even if the pendulum swings to the far opposite side, it requires the potential energy collected from the initial side, and so on. I’m also surprised that the names Lennart Green (with his chaotic approach that fooled so many) and Dani DaOrtiz (with his emphasis on psychological and spontaneous controls that seem to be part of his DNA) have not been mentioned. I also think that Lorayne’s approach to explaining magic (with his conversational and clear writing style) as well as his contributions to memory techniques certainly carved a new direction for so many books, authors, and methods, that followed.

Such a great topic, and so many great thoughts to consider! I am really enjoying reading all of the above posts (but it does cut into my “practice time”!) — thanks to Mike and the other posters for the fascinating discussion — johnny
0
Robin Dawes

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,328
Reply with quote  #27 
Maybe it's worth considering that Einstein developed his theory of gravitation because Newton's theory failed to correctly fit observed data.  Newton's theory worked fine for the data that were available in his time, but by the 20th century much more accurate measurements were available.  The point being that Einstein's explanation of gravitation was needed because the previous theory was no longer sufficient.

So can we consider ways in which the current state of magic is "not fitting the data"?  Maybe that would help us to identify some aspects of the next paradigm shift, even if we can't see who will bring it about.
0
Bill Guinee

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 113
Reply with quote  #28 
This is an absolutely fascinating topic for me. As I have mentioned before, I kind of dropped out of magic about 37 years ago and only got back in during the last year. One of the things I have been fascinated with is just what has changed. At the time I dropped out (1982) there were lots of greats around such as Marlo, Alan, and Goshman and many many others, but it seemed like the guys who were shaking the tree were fellows like Paul Harris, Derek Dingle, Darwin Ortiz, John Mendoza, and don't forget Eugene Burger: guys that may be part of the paradigm shift (I don't really believe in one person shifts) that you describe.  Now, all these years later, after the shift, I have a few observations about what has changed, but I feel that I am just beginning my discovery of what has happened. 

First (most important), although there was magic all over the world back then, we simply were not as aware of it as people are these days. The incredible developments in places like Spain and Asia were not in my consciousness.
Second, perhaps because of this there have been a raft of performers who have come along (and some who have left) since then, people like Ascanio, Tamariz, Wonder, Daryl, Giobbi, and so many others.
Third, there seems to have been tremendous development in sleight of hand at least in the area of cards. Sleights seem to have frequently been refined and perfected.
Fourth, everything magical (especially books) has skyrocketed in price.
Fifth, the internet, youtube, downloadable videos, DVDs, online forums, skype, online dealers. At the time of the paradigm shift you mention, MTV had not even come along. I think there are inevitably both positive and negative aspects of all of this.
Sixth, new approaches such as bizarre magic, street busking (following people like David Blain, who I hadn't heard of), that spooky stuff, and so on. (memorized decks)
Seventh, a continuation of the decline of the stage illusion and growth of close up (especially card) magic.
Eighth, an ongoing de-formalization of magic. Top hats and tails seem a thing of the past, and frequently now one finds the magician in extremely casual garb and style of discourse. Even doing bar magic, I used to wear a vest and tie.
Ninth, perhaps in relation to the growth of the internet, there seems to be a decline in participation in local magic clubs (or branches of larger clubs).

I am sure that there have been other significant developments, and that I am probably out to lunch on some of these. Please let me know. Do these various forces amount to a paradigm shift? The fundamental problem, in my opinion, with Kuhn's hypothesis about paradigm shifts was his notion that it happened suddenly and overwhelmingly and was usually because of the work of one great man. I don't think that is how things really change and develop. We may choose a particular figurehead as emblematic of a shift, but it usually occurs because of larger forces in society and the work of many individuals.
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom G
At a lecture by Shin, he mentioned he learned mostly from Youtube, also that most of his stuff is designed for video.

Don't get me started. [rolleyes]

__________________
 
0
ianmcrawford

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 164
Reply with quote  #30 
Thanks Mike, for posting such and interesting topic.  I really appreciate the positive discussion.

I would like to offer an alternative view.  I don't think any one person can be attributed the paradigm shift that is occurring in magic.  Rather I propose a more Darwinian cause.  I believe magic is evolving at an increasingly accelerating pace due to globalization.  Yes, the internet may be one cause, but over the past 25 or 30 years magic resources have become increasingly accessible through translations, video and the web allowing exposure to magic from around the world.  The work of geniuses such as Harris, Ascanio, Tamariz, and Wonder (to name a few) are available are being combined into a cultural mosaic.  We see performers from the Spanish school of card magic (Tamariz), the beautiful manipulations from Korea and China (Chien, Lim) , the European creativity (Frisch, Romier).  And of course, the global ...Got Talent franchise has produced crowd pleasers like Shin Lim (Canadian/American/Chinese).  And all these performers combine elements taken from all over the world into beautiful magic.

Whether you love it or hate it, there is no denying that You Tube produces magic and millions of dollars, yen, euros etc for performers who understand that a whole generation want to consume their entertainment in 30 second increments on the net.  And as a result, those viewers see magic influenced by every culture on the planet.

Like everything, magic is evolving fast.  Let week I attended a local club auction, and couldn't believe the amount of 20 year old stuff that didn't sell, because it was obsolete.  Yes, there are gems to be found in old books and resources, but the way magic is being performed will continue to evolve at an alarming pace.
0
Mbreggar

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 417
Reply with quote  #31 
Very much agree with others that this is a great post theme!

In my mind, outside of card magic, no one has changed more thinking and performance style than Max Maven. Look at how much more “accessible” he has made mentalism compared to greatness of Annemann, Dunninger and Corinda. Maven/Goldstein combined with the writings of Bascom Jones, Jr and TA Waters revolutionized the delivery of mental effects. Interestingly (or not) Uri Geller moved the needle backwards a bit through his insistence that his powers were real. But Max and subsequently others pushed the performance aspects forward.
Do some research... you will find a quantum leap in mentalism pre and post Max.
0
RayJ

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,116
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers

The term "paradigm shift" was used (maybe invented) by Thomas Kuhn in the '60s in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." At the time, the concept as applied to scientific revolutions e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian revolutions, was a new way to think about history. 

Historians had often thought about history as being "driven" by "great people." In that view, Newton and Einstein were focal points. Whereas Kuhn viewed revolutions as coming from what might be called "the spirit of the times." He pointed out that simultaneous, independent discoveries/inventions were the rule rather than the exception. Newton's invention of the calculus is a good example. Gottfried Leibniz independently invented calculus around the same time that Newton did.  Newton and Leibniz had an ongoing priority dispute throughout their lives.

I see Paul Harris as a Newton or Einstein. I think there was certainly a "paradigm shift" with Harris. There's magic before Harris and magic after Harris. Harris showed us that we had been thinking "inside a box" and he blew the lid off that box. That's what a paradigm shift does. Aristotle = things fall to the earth because the center of the earth is the center of the universe and objects naturally seek the center of the universe. Newton = masses exert a force on each other. The earth and an object mutually pull on each other. He gave us the formula. Einstein = object don't exert forces on each other. Mass curves space and things follow the shortest distance between two point in curved space. 2000 years of thinking like Aristotle, then Newton comes along and blows Aristotelian thinking about physics out the window.

We haven’t had a real revolution in science since Einstein. Relativity still works and there aren’t any real contenders for an alternative. People have tried, but Einstein is still here.

So the question is: Has there been any paradigm shift since Harris? Thanks to Paul, we are now thinking outside of the old box. But, undoubtedly were in a different box and when you’re in a box, it’s practically impossible to see the box. It just seems to be the normal order of things. 

The internet has been revolutionary and has provided a new way to find things and to interact. The internet could be seen as a paradigm shift in how we communicate. It may provide the means for another paradigm shift in magic.

Has there been a paradigm shift since PH? What other “great people” were doing cool things around the time that Harris broke out. Was Harris a consequence of the “spirit of the times?”

“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’

And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?’”

Mike



Fascinating topic.  I'll be cogitating on this one for a while.  I agree about Paul Harris and his influence.  He made magic "cool" and his humorous, disarming style went a long way to selling his brand of close-up.  I saw him perform and lecture in St. Louis at a convention somewhere around 1979 or 80 I think.  He was great.  He did Earth Shoes and it was the funniest thing I had seen to that point.  Most surprising too.

So I agree on Paul.

Since then, I think the biggest shift in magic has to be the internet.  When I started, you were lucky if you could see magic on TV occasionally.  Bill Bixby and The Magician was to die for and Mark Wilson's Magic Circus was incredible.  There was occasional magic on Bozo The Clown.  VHS tapes didn't exist and we couldn't have afforded them anyway so recording was out.

Now if you want to see some magic, it is at your fingertips.  Not just the performance, but the explanation which leads to another shift.

Whether it is a paradigm shift or not, secrets used to be traded like gold and now are given out as freely as air.   Even among magicians, secrets used to be held close to the vest.  We typically had a quid-pro-quo system where I would show you something if you showed me something.  And some wouldn't even do that.

I  remember distinctly performing my stage act at a Midwest Magic Jubilee competition where Tim Star (if you don't know of him, you should) was a judge.  After the contest, he took me aside and suggested to me that there might be a better way to ditch a dye tube that I used for a "Blendo" routine.  He wouldn't tell me what, he just said "vanish it!".  Took me a long time thinking about that, but I finally came up with something.  He made me work for it.  Back in the day if you wanted to know how something was done you bought the book or traded someone for it.

So to me, that is the biggest change.  The advent of the internet has had lots of positives too.  This forum is one example!  Another is the online resources like Denis Behr's where you can find where a particular routine or card sleight is located and then go buy that book.  Conjuring Archive, MagicPedia, etc. are all of great help.  Also, I can find videos of performances by magicians I might never get the chance to see in person, some of whom have passed on.  I was fortunate to see Vernon, Slydini, Marlo, Goshman, Shimada, Blackstone Jr., Johnny Thomson and many more in person.  If I want, I can go see them again, in moments.

I don't want to sound like the angry "Get off of my grass" old man, but back in the day there were dues you had to pay in order to be accepted into the fraternity.  Is there even a fraternity still?  Are the youngsters paying dues?  Is mentoring still a thing?  

At the end of the day it can't be too bad I guess.  I'm still interested and happy to help others where I can.  

And glad to be a member of a forum that has respect for magic and for each other.

Thanks for the topic idea Mike!
0
Paul Hallas

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,166
Reply with quote  #33 
I must admit, I bought the early Paul Harris books because they were fun to read and a few of the routines are still in my repertoire after decades. Yes, I saw him lecture and perform but I never considered him a paradigm shift. At the time I thought Mike Ammar and Daryl were just as exciting and fresh. And let's not forget his early books  also have  contributions from others, Daniel Cross, Ackerman, Wagner etc. The eighties seemed very exciting times for close uppers in general. I was just as baffled and entertained by others

The first comments from Paul in the Art of Astonishment Vol. 1 are:  "Close to fifty effects have been cut from the previously published material because either more elegant versions have evolved or because the original effect was genetically mediocre. How I ever had the nerve to publish some of that stuff is a constant inspiration to me...' 

In fact I made the mistake of disposing of the early Harris books prior to buying The Art of Astonishment which was a mistake because of the omissions!

Looking back, Paul Harris published more than his contemporaries and had a fun writing style that stood out but was just part of the evolving nature of card magic.

If forced into a choice of having to rid myself of the Harris books or Stewart James books, the Harris books would go. Sacrilege to some I'm sure. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice. 😉



0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #34 
Hi Paul,

For me the "paradigm shift" with Harris (if indeed there was one) was due to his out of the box thinking. Cards can be torn into rings and linked. They can be rolled up into "blow guns." The card box can be introduced in a folded up condition. Then when it is unfolded, a deck is inside. A box with deck inside can be treated like pool cue. You cut the deck and find that it's a solid block etc.

It seems that everyone else was still in "the box" not thinking like this. For me Harris opened our eyes to a new way of thinking. Sankey and Harkey were similarly thinking outside the box, but Harris was the one who blew the lid off and ushered in the new way of thinking that Sankey and Harkey adopted. Now that thinking is standard. We're in the new paradigm. 

The classics will always be classic. But once the veil was lifted, we could see them in new ways and many creative thinkers have revisited them and created remarkable variations. Then, with the internet, the volume and frequency of new ideas popping up is off the charts.

That's how I see Harris. 

Mike
0
Tom G

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 990
Reply with quote  #35 
Not to mention that Paul had some really clever coin effects.  Even though I knew what was coming in the AOA books, I knew I'd keep the originals.  They transported me to a time that I considered a new PH book worth the 4 hour round trip to Boston.  Opening them up and seeing funny but interesting plots and wasting a part of my life on the Curly Cue move. 
0
RayJ

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,116
Reply with quote  #36 
To me Harris is kind of the "face" of an era.  He used to hang around with several other magicians including Daryl, but to me Paul was the guy.  But let's not get hung up on trying to create a hierarchy of performers in that era or genre.  
Maybe there is a way to characterize the style of magic Paul Harris was known for and focus on that instead of making him the focal point?
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #37 
Well, to be fair - and clear -, Mike was suggesting that it was PH's thinking that possibly (perhaps) constituted a paradigm shift in magic. Perhaps he wasn't the actual catalyst, but instead the dynamo that ignited the elements of the zeitgeist already in place.

Av  
0
RayJ

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,116
Reply with quote  #38 
Anthony, I get your point, but this is a snipped from the original post...

Historians had often thought about history as being "driven" by "great people." In that view, Newton and Einstein were focal points. Whereas Kuhn viewed revolutions as coming from what might be called "the spirit of the times." He pointed out that simultaneous, independent discoveries/inventions were the rule rather than the exception. Newton's invention of the calculus is a good example. Gottfried Leibniz independently invented calculus around the same time that Newton did.  Newton and Leibniz had an ongoing priority dispute throughout their lives.

I see Paul Harris as a Newton or Einstein.

All I'm suggesting is that if it furthers the discussion to not focus on PH as much as the genre, or the era, then it might help some people contribute to the discussion.  What got me thinking this was the post from Paul Hallas above.

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to be helpful because I think it is a very worthy topic and should generate lots of thoughts.  I'm hoping more will contribute their perspectives.
0
Paul Hallas

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,166
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom G
Not to mention that Paul had some really clever coin effects.  Even though I knew what was coming in the AOA books, I knew I'd keep the originals.  They transported me to a time that I considered a new PH book worth the 4 hour round trip to Boston.  Opening them up and seeing funny but interesting plots and wasting a part of my life on the Curly Cue move. 


Yeah, after reading it I immediately made up his "Torn and Restored Coin" routine 😉

Mike, thank you for spelling it out for me :0 😉 I'm sure if I had the time I could find "Out of The Box" card routines prior to Harris, (Peter Kane's "Shrinking Card Case" or his Stretching card effect come to mind) but I have to concur given your excellent examples that Harris came up with MORE than anyone. 

Of course routines like your "Holey Terror", "Diminishing Returns" are just as impressive or more so than some of them. I'd guess Paul's pool cue deck thing lives more in magician's drawers than in their repertoires (but I could be wrong). 

Linking Cards seems to me something that is more interesting to card magicians than lay people who would be just as amazed with Linking Rings or linking Rubber Bands of finger rings. Though I must admit to owning four or five manuscripts on the plot at one point!

There is no doubt he's had a big impact on card magic and inspired a lot of card magicians. He was one of my favorite magic authors. 

AS Bill Guinee said, there were a few shaking the tree in the eighties.



 
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,814
Reply with quote  #40 
Hi Ray,

I think it's fine to focus on the era. When I was in grad school we read a book titled, "The Century of Revolution: 1603-1714." Newton was born in 1643 and produced his greatest work in his early 20s. In many ways this era (17th century) was like our 1960s IMO. The '60s was a time of out of the box thinking and a rejection of old ideas. Harris (and others) were products of this time period. "Paul Harris Reveals Some of His Most Intimate Secrets" came out in 1976. 

Just as Newton "Stood on the shoulders of giants", so did Paul Harris. But even though Harris is a product of his time period, I think he stands out against the background just as Newton and Einstein do. If Harris hadn't blown the lid off the box we were in, someone else would have. Nonetheless, it seems to me that PH was the one who did it.

As always - just some thoughts.

Mike
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,333
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayJ
Anthony, I get your point, but this is a snipped from the original post...

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to be helpful because I think it is a very worthy topic and should generate lots of thoughts.  I'm hoping more will contribute their perspectives.


Ray, I didn't interpret your remarks as argumentative. Glad to hear your perspective since I agree, that the more we hear, the deeper we think.

Your point in reprinting from the OP is well-taken and does put things in greater, er, perspective. [wink] 

Av
0
RayJ

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,116
Reply with quote  #42 
One of the things I remember about PH when I saw him lecture was his attire.  It was common at the time for anybody performing or lecturing to wear a suit or at least a sport coat and slacks.  Ties were not mandatory but most wore them.
Paul came out in khaki pants and a corduroy jacket which I believe had the leather elbow patches.  His shirt was plaid cotton and the lapel was over the lapel of the coat.  That was a typical thing to do back then.  He was wearing leather "Earth Shoes" with gum rubber soles.  He used those for his "Earth Shoes" routine which I mentioned above.  

So in addition to the magic, his persona was just "different" from what we were used to seeing.  Nowadays, pretty much anything goes regarding attire.  Another to add to the era with regard to "costume" would be Doug Henning.  No tuxedos on him!   His outfits were perfectly in keeping with his persona.  I was lucky to meet him after his stage show and I remember him being very kind.  I was surprised he was on the smaller side.  But his contributions were huge.

Anthony, glad you saw what I was trying to do.  I really like the atmosphere on this forum and I want to contribute it, not change it.
0
Paul Hallas

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,166
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
 "Paul Harris Reveals Some of His Most Intimate Secrets" came out in 1976. 
Mike


Yes, I was referring to the eighties and had forgotten Paul's first book came out in 1976. I didn't actually buy them in the order they were released. I think my first introduction to his work was "Supermagic" and then "Las Vegas Close Up".

I think his "Art of Astonishment" compilation and the hype around it re-introduced his work to a whole new generation of close uppers and the rest is history... 
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.