Recognizing magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure
congress.gov
congress.gov
In Dutch, "goochelen", performed by a "goochelaar" is doing tricks in a show, where you know it's all illusions but it's still very impressive. On the other hand, "toveren", done by a "tovenaar" would be doing something supernatural. Typically a "goochelaar" is somebody on a stage with a black top hat, while a "tovenaar" is more like an old man with a long white beard and a purple pointy hat in fiction.
In English, both seem to be called "magic". It's very confusing...
We call them magic shows in general, but some magician's call themselves illusionists. If we're talking about supernatural magic, sometimes we use the variant magick.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Thurston...
You don't have to use that word so maybe it's weaker than the Dutch "goochelaar," but a lot of people do.
It would be the case if this were happening with well-intentioned environmentalists too, although I'm sure it would look very different in the particulars. The fact is though, that in history doesn't teach us to be concerned about vastly wealthy and powerful environmental interests. Maybe that will change someday, but it's not the history of our planet at least.
tl;dr Context
It's a pet complaint within Magic circles that Magic should be treated like an art form, but I wouldn't expect anyone to actually throw a large sum behind it.
So quite often magicians do things for the benefit of the whole craft, versus any individual gain.
If you imagine it like other arts, it starts to make sense in my view.
Someone really didn't put much thought into this statement.
And all the references to Project Magic does lead me to consider who put them up to proposing this
The ordinary experience for someone viewing a magic act is that something impossible has happened. The fact that we know, logically, that it cannot be the case doesn't change the fact that what we experience is impossible. It's unexplainable by the majority of viewers.
If the argument is "magic doesn't exist, therefore what you experienced is entirely normal and unremarkable" then frankly the interlocutor just don't get the point of why people watch magic.
>Whereas magic enables people to experience the impossible
Now you're just playing with the fact that "magic" has two meanings, even if the context is well understood. The sentence is clearly worded, and the only logical interpretation is akin to "video games enable people to experience the impossible", which I find totally valid.