=spell=

In my experience, magick is efficacious to the extent that the practitioner doesn't entirely know what he or she is doing, but does it with a great deal of intent. This may seem illogical, but, of course, magic is illogical. 

Aleister Crowley's attempt to inject an element of scientific exactitude into magick aside (similar to Freud's attempt to make of psychology a systematic science aped by Breton who tried to claim the same for surrealism) magick, in the end, remains an art.

Magick works or doesn't work in the same way that poems work or don't work. And just because we all can't play the piano like Beethoven or paint like Picasso or write like T.S. Eliot doesn't negate the existence of the Ninth Symphony, Guernica or The Waste Land. 

Poetry can't be created according to a recipe and neither can magick, although magick "recipe" books can easily be found and would-be practitioners are disappointed that they never work. The fact is, you can't even make a really good cupcake by strictly following a recipe. Although it's considerably easier to bake brownies from a box than it is to make magick from a pre-mix.

To make magick, one must half-know what one is doing and let coincidence, inspiration, fortuitous "mistakes," and the unconscious do the rest. In the above instance, the intention is clear. The "spell" is written out in a script that is by turns calm and deliberate to desperate and frenzied. Personal elements are added (i.e. the lipstick prints) as well as any other incidental marks, stains, etc that may have accrued to the paper during the time that the spell was invoked. A haphazard stitching further extends both the symbolism of the magickal intent, the emotional state behind it, and the pain of whatever pinpricks might have been experienced.

Lastly, the spell must be launched into the world at large. In this case, the mail art network serves this last purpose quite well. 

What is the difference between magick and art? None, really.