Are they more or less discerning?
Have shorter attention spans?
Prefer different style of effects?
More knowledgeable about 'magic'?

what do you think?

If society has changed, and it has, then an audience that represents that society has changed in exactly the same way.

First you have to define past. 20 years, 50 years, what do you consider past?

Good topic! esp for our seasoned magi... (Pete,Pops, Harry et al. Want to weigh in?). I've noticed that in spite of all those youtube 'tutorials', I'm never burned for some of the basics like TT or a DL. Perhaps nowadays, people might be less likely 'conned'. I remember seeing (in Berkeley, CA!) a 3 card monte hustler back in the 70's. I've never seen a shell and pea hustle; but obviously love the magic (as Bob Sheets says, "we're not playin for money here, we're playin for love.") Lynn

No! The only thing that has changed for me anyhow is TV magic, which I have lost all faith in.

The OP mentioned "50 years"; and that had me right there. I was hoping to hear from some of those who performed around 50 years ago (ie 1965 or thereabouts). Audiences change definitely with the times... you don't see much cigarette manipulation as in the past, but you do see some i-phone manipulation. But what about audience gullibility, reactions to patter, etc. And a kind of general question for the seasoned pros...do people want to see magic as much as their audiences of 50 years ago? Lynn

I was performing in the 60's, so let me give this a shot. I think audiences back then were more polite in general, more willing to sit through a process as long as there was a distinct payoff. They liked comedy but were not as tolerant of raucous or offensive patter and pranks as are today's audiences. Certainly they were less knowledgeable about the magic in general, but more important, today there is far more technology and modern audiences know about it.

Yeah, I performed "back then" and would suggest two major differences:

1) the respect of audiences for performers and respect for other people in general. Folks once enjoyed entertainment by others in balance with the ability to enertain themsleves. Now there is a demand of "entertian me" wiht ittle capacity for self-entertainment -- Just an opinion.

2) learning to perform magic was an expected activity, especially for boys such as in Boy Scouts and school publicatiosn ike Weekly Reader. The focus was on preparation and willing to get up in front of a crowd. People would applaud the effort rather that the quality of the effect, and the focus was not on "gotcha" or "getting dates" or other ego based incentive. Interesting puzzles, mental based games and magic could all be found in "magic books" as almost required reading. Buying a magic effect was rare beyond perhaps giving a 10 year old a magic set. If given, the kid was expected to put together a show for familiy and friends.

So, the changes may be more cultural than just "audience" with "appreciating magic" minimalized along with madetory learning of a musical instrument, particpation in skits and plays, and even "playing" without electronic gismos. It is imagination that has been lost, and along with it, and desire of an audience to reward it.

Read Dick Osland's book on what worked in School Assembly programs back then and judge if that would work today.

Today magicians do "tricks" because folks seem to like being fooled. Back then people enjoyed magic and that is what they got.

Hard to place blame on anything, but having every other product on TV claim to be magic doesn't help. Politicans even claim to have a magic solution to problems.

I think that means "hold onto your wallet."

I tend to think that today "magicians" do "tricks" because they "think" that people like to be fooled. Maybe it's because the "magicians" in question like to be fooled too, and/or because they believe that magic is all about fooling people.

Audiences have also become increasingly 'jaded' by having 'seen everything.'

I remember, in the 90s, leaving the cinema after seeing "The Shadow," and hearing a pre-teen kid mutter, "So he could become invisible--so what?!?"

Interesting posts.

But they all seem negative ...

Are there no positive changes in audiences?

Perhaps not.

I think a more aware audience is a good thing. I think entertainment is in reach of more peoples budgets and that is a good thing.

I never think things that are inevitable are good or bad, they just are. Adapt or get a new profession. Change is good.

Wonder.land

It’s a new Lewis Carrol musical. It's about a modern Alice who creates a wonderland away from the real world on here computer. When we were kids no one had a TV and so there was live action, even it was only going out on the street to play. People today they have all gone to wonderland.

I have been trying to imagine "magic" that does not 'fool' folks. I'm not sure what the point would be. Fooled? Mystified? Whatever. Magic has always made folks say, "Wow or cool or...how's that done?" They were fooled. Some folks don't like to be fooled. But, then some people don't like other people or dogs or lot's of stuff.

A magic presentation that 'fools' the audience is the essence of the craft. Making folks "like" it is the 'art'.

IF magic was "real", there would be no magic. In his book, "The Magician", by Ray Feist, the main character discovers that the 'real' secret of 'magic' is that there is "no magic." If magic as we perform it did not 'fool' folks it wouldn't BE magic. It would just be something taken for granted and given no special place of interest. It would be like looking at a stamp collection. Yawn.

Indeed. I think the big difference between live and TV magic is you know with live magic that you have really been fooled, as opposed to being hoodwinked by camera trickery, editing etcetera. Live magic creates a stronger dilemma than TV magic you might say. I think one can with TV magic appreciate the art side almost as much but the magic loses something on TV, for me anyway. I guess because with TV magic there is an out in it being put down to it possibly being a camera trick. A young magician came into bar the other day and the excitement he caused with his performance was terrific but you don’t sort thing happen with TV magic. I actually was not but I saw how the kids there were talking about it for days after. They kept saying, he was on another level! Then debating how and so on.

One could argue that "astonishment" is not the same as "being fooled," -- and that therein lies the secret to magic.

It is easy to fool people judging by the number of internet scams sent each day. But those participating would not use "magic" for the event or results.

Alternately, people can be astonished by naturally occurring events and later call it magical experience -- even though they later understand the cause (not fooled).

When we as magicians create the conditions under which a person is astonished they may or may not be "fooled," and may or may not work at finding a cause either way.

If you set out to "fool someone" in a "gotcha" sense, "magic" may not be part of the story told after.

When you announce you are a magician the audience knows you are going to employ artifice, special knowledge and skill to astonish them -- and there cannot be "fooled." You promise and deliver.

These are slippery words to be sure, but when a spectator says, "You sure fooled me," or ""so that is what real magic looks like" they know the difference.

The question then arises....WHY are they astonished? Would they, say, be astonished if they KNEW exactly 'how' it was 'done'? I don't think so. When I watch a world class juggler do his or her thing I'm flat out astonished, but not fooled. I juggle, but not like 'they' do.

If folks are not FIRST fooled, they will NOT be astonished. It's almost axiomatic. Even a magician watching another magician do something that they both know and do themselves can still be fooled by the performance and there you have another 'kind' of astonishment!

The question of HOW YOU PRESENT THE "getting fooled" is another question entirely. Sometimes the "gotcha" presentation can work really well and folks love it. See Hip Hop Rabbits, Die Box, etc. It's both fooling and entertaining assuming it's done well in the same way some comedians can 'insult' and audience and the audience loves it. See Anthony Jeselnik on Netflix for instance.

And, so, 'astonishment' is always a byproduct of 'foolin'' them.

For me, the term "fooling" has a connotation of "I did something, and you can't figure out how I did it." In other words, "I'm more clever than you are." It's like a puzzle: I can do it and you can't. That's not magic because it automatically brings up the issue of "how" instead of WOW!"

To me, a magic trick needs to generate a "no friggin' way" response instead of an "I can't figure out how you did it" response. So sure, "fooling them" is part of the game, but magic needs to come across like "I did something impossible here" inst4ad of like "I fooled you."

Then, George, we agree. I say, "fool" 'em and you say...well, what you said. Where we disagree is that two magicians can do the exact same trick. One does it to meet the criteria you have set above. The other does it exactly the same....EXCEPT...by attitude he projects that negative aspects noted. In both cases the trick "fools" them, but in case two the presentation, character, etc. of the performer leaves a bad taste behind.

Every time.....EVERY TIME I have said WOW at a presentation....I (personally) have been fooled. It have never, EVER occurred to me that NO explanation existed. I was enthralled, frankly, with the fact that I did not know how it was done. But, that fact that I might have wanted to know the method did nothing to lessen the WOW. It's two differing categories for me. But, again, I NEVER was wowed when not fooled before hand. One follows for me naturally from the other. The time factor may be a stumbling point. I'm talking many times about 1-2 seconds. Wooo....fooled me! WOW!!!

I have this niggling feeling that we are talking about basically the same thing....we simply quantify and qualify it differently.

My audience know full well that my card tricks are nothing more or less than tricks from the beginning. What amazes them is the trick does not apparently exist! What makes it tick? That would be the trick which apparently does not exist and is a secret. For the purpose of entertainment what makes it tick, is whatever nonsense they have gone along with for their amusement that I have offered up, to get them into the spirit of the thing. It is that nonsense which is proven to be so by the magic experiment. So it is an amusing dilemma they are in, as it is fiction proven to fact in effect. They will often smile as they reflect upon their predicament. A good magician and I am not one who is but a good magician can also cause great excitement long after he has gone as they who have seen him perform tell their story. You don’t have to see a magician perform to know that he was good. Some magicians are sensational and one can know from merely listening to those who were there at his performance talking about it. Not all magicians are on the same level. Why some are better than others I think comes down to how much work they do. The best tend to spend long hours studying their sport to get know a lot about it and put into practice every day what they know. They who are also charming get to know what the others who spend an equal amount of time getting to know which gives those who charming the edge. This means those at the top have no time for wine, women and song and live lonely lives. The professional would rather play than eat. That is why it is tough at the top. Anyhow they are not fooled in the same way as a charlatan or conman fools them, as they know what I do is a trick from the start.

Brad, I agree that we're saying the same thing too, and I disagree that we disagree on the case of the two magicians.

I'm thinking that the term "fool" means different things to magicians and the general public. "We" love to see material that doesn't jive with any of the stuff in our internal databases: this levitation can't be an Asrah, or an Aga, or a Super-X, or Blaney's Chair Suspension, or anything else we're familiar with. Wow, that's cool. Sure fooled me.

But I don't believe that the general public thinks this way. They generally have no internal database of magic principles, so when they see an Asrah (properly performed), they don't say, "Oh, that's not the Thurston method or the Great Whoosis method, so I don't know how he did it." If the performer has done a proper job, they will go, that's impossible. Did they get "fooled" as we use the term? Sure. But not having a clue how this guy could possibly do his stuff was (hopefully) part of their expectation, and, if they said, that's impossible, that expectation was met.

I'll even go as far as stating that if they said, "WOW!" then their expectation was exceeded.

All I'm really saying is that you can "fool" somebody and come across like a guy who thinks he's hot doo-doo (because that's how they see you), or you can "fool" them and come across like a magical entertainer. I know: I did both at one time or another.