I'm a visual artist and not long ago I got back into magic because I'm interested in the parallels between magic and art. Conceptually, visually, and culturally they have a lot of fascinating connections.

On a related note, I just stumbled upon a great little piece by Teller from an interview he did for a TV show "Mysteries of Magic: Masters of Mystery (part 1 of 3)" that aired on the TLC network in the late 1990s. It's currently available on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoFiXlRj4HI

There's a short section at about 16:35 - 17:46 where he's discussing the cups and balls and mentioning how he'd sometimes be practicing the moves at a diner late at night using a coffee mug and a balled up paper napkin. He demonstrates an amazing little routine that appears as though nothing magical happens at all -- he places the napkin ball under the mouth of the mug and when he raises the mug again the ball is where you expect it to be. That's it. But then he reveals that he used multiple sleights to simulate this banal series of events.

It's a wonderful example of exploring magic (in this case sleight of hand) in an "abstract" or "conceptual" way. I'm sure this kind of exercise is useful to a degree (as practice and for generating new routine ideas), but I love the idea of experimenting with magic concepts for their own sake or looking at them from a purely philosophical perspective.

I'd very much like to get some more recommendations of magicians or specific videos and texts that explore this same kind of thing. It doesn't have to be just sleight of hand; it can be anything magic-related.

I remember that Teller routine well. He accomplished a simple task through secret and convoluted maneuvers.
His motivation is bizarre, but fascinating.

It's an interesting idea, but what does it show?

I wouldn’t qualify that kind of move as “abstract” (it’s still a ball and a cup) but it is conceptual in a sense that it focuses on the process to create an effect unknown by the spectator. There isn’t much work about this kind of approach since most magicians aim at effects and entertainment. However, most prestidigitator do that kind of routine without even knowing it as part of their daily practice. For example, palming a coin while doing everyday tasks without ever showing the coin to people around.
The performance of prestidigitation in the context of conceptual art is rare. You should take a look at Ryan Magestic performance in an empty room, without any spectator. He also presented a repetitive card trick in front of a group of spectators, breaking the “rule” that you shouldn’t repeat the same trice twice. A challenge escape in a gallery also...
I would also consider this new trend of “experimental legerdemain” as conceptual since it emphasis hand choreography and the aesthetic of manipulation. Check the work of Dafedas B.
There is also a trend of “magie nouvelle” (new magic) in Europe, mainly in France. It is a mix of theater, dance, juggling, technology and illusionism. See Étienne Saglio, Raphaël Navarro.
Obviously, “conceptual prestidigitation” go beyond the usual visual effect and puzzling demonstration. To the “how did he do that?” is added a “why did he do that?”. In conceptual work, there is a whole process of questioning reality, materials, space and movements, perception, etc... Interesting field of research.

Jacques -- I used the term "abstract" more as it's used in the realm of visual art I guess. In art, abstraction is often defined as "art for art's sake." And I liked the idea of using magic concepts/methods just for their own sake and not necessarily with an entertaining effect as the intention. Thanks for bringing up Ryan Majestic, too. I'm looking into his work with visual artist Glenn Kaino.

And I'm still very interested to hear what others think of these ideas.

It doesn't add anything to this conversation but just to be precise. "abstraction" isn't "art for art". Abstraction is the substraction of any figurative reference in an artistic work. "Art for art" is more a cliché about artworks that refer to themselves and are made just because someone wants to make them without any other purposes. In the context of illusionism. An abstract routine would use props that doesn't come from real life or represent anything from it, and this routine would be limited to basic relationships between the props. A paper ball and a cup are objects from our everyday life.
However, a conceptual routine would use any props (abstract or not) but refer to the process, components and effects of the routine. In conceptual work, the idea is more important than the objects or the effect.

I just noticed that Ryan Magestic website isn't there anymore. I hope that he is still out there.
I will send you a file with some information...

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJQSpL7mbo

Sorry, I made a spelling mistake. It supposed to be "Ryan Majestic".
However, his website experimentalmagic.com isn't onlline anymore.
You can find him now at www.ryanmajestic.com/ but it's not the same kind of shows anymore...

I think the "effect without the effect" is art, but probably the kind that only other magicians would appreciate. The effect is most impressive to the audience, the method, IMO, is most impressive to the magician.

I have told stories of a magic effect and produced the same "sense of magic" for the listeners
as experienced by the original observers.

This might be considered "abstract" -- but, since the "awe and wonder" occured only in the minds of the audience in both cases, I am not sure.

From one view all magic is abstract and what we observe is the mechanics of the demonstation.

many performers have related how someone years after has related a performed effect --
but what is described never happened at all. The memory has been overlayed by the observer's expectations and emotional content.

that is pretty abstract and conceptual.

I believe,
when Teller sits in front of a camera,
Teller makes a show.
I do not believe Teller sits up nights,
...let alone goes into Cafés,
and plays with a cup and ball.
,..I believe he's simply trying to sell himself
as an 'intellectual'.
,..now THERE'S an Abstraction!
(and he like teasing Magicians..)

Abstraction, especially in Art,
is generally considered, "... a departure from reality".
'Magic', in this sence,
should be the perfect media for abstraction to be displayed(!)..
But it isn't,..
is it?
I believe this says something about the practise of Magic today.
The 'illusion' or 'effect'
is more a presentation of the 'Magician';
then the delusion of Nature.

The Ego,...
'Reality Invisiblitus Maximus'.
gallagher

p.s.: While digging deep here,
I actually define Art, as: a calculated alteration of nature.
An Abstraction?
possibly,..
but,
the more 'realistic',
the more 'Magical'.
,..an interesting correlation.

p.s.s.: Don't let gags,
no matter how intellectually rhetorfied,
fog your understanding of reality.
(i'm referring to Glenn Kiano)
,..feet on the ground,
an eye to the sky;
the air we breath
is the same.

If you spend any time with Teller you would know that he's not putting up a front of being an intellectual. He's among the smartest magicians performing professionally and he is extremely well read.

If you spend any time with Teller you would know that he's not putting up a front of being an intellectual. He's among the smartest magicians performing professionally and he is extremely well read.