What do you think about magic and the internet? Namely magic ON the internet. To be clear I'm not talking about exposing marketed things on the internet but more just the new trend of youtube, Facebook and instagram.

Here's my two cents;

I look at magic on television and on the internet the same way people looked at acting before there was television and movies. For years people said acting is for the stage not this new media. Over time it branched off and it became its own genre of acting. It became its own art. Music was the same way. You can't record music, music is for people - it has to be live. In much the same way I look at magic like this as well. NOW let me make it clear, I know that there will always be a place for live performances and that (hopefully) will never die. But that being said, this new trend of magic on the internet is something that can't be stopped. It will happen more and more and that doesn't make the people doing it less relevant. There is a place for everyone in magic in my opinion, and for this I will reference a recent video done by Dan Sperry where he went on and bashed not only magic companies but people who don't perform.

I will say this openly, and with out remorse: Dan is COMPLETELY wrong. Just because you are not a performer doesn't take away from you and what you enjoy. Performing is not for everyone and frankly not everyone should be performers. There are many people who are not that have done amazing things in magic. As I said there is a place for everyone in magic including the conceptualists, the creators and the theorists. There are performers who don't have the time or take the time for better or for worse, use the ideas from performers and all of the rest. In fact, one of the effects Dan does was created by Sean Fields who (in respect to Dan's thoughts) is not a performer and because of that less than? However, Dan has no issues using this effect for his own performance and that seems a bit strange to me.

Considering not everyone is a creator we need creators, and not everyone is a performer and we need those too. Most, if not everything in life is nothing more than a remix of something that we saw, learned or was inspired by. So lets not take away from the people who sit and take years to create an effect then sell it and have a performer use it. And lets not forget that for all the non performers there are plenty who are great thinkers and work for performers. I'm not saying that the people on David Blaine's or David Copperfield's team are not performers, but that doesn't take away from their value and what they have contributed to magic, magic history and magic to the public. If you are not a performer, fine - don't be, but on the same account don't teach people how to perform either, leave that to the performers. And if you are not a creator, fine, don't be, but don't take away from the value of the creators either.

Magic is a community where everyone has a say and has value if we just listen. Belittling others because they don't abide by what you think the rules for magic are won't help anything. Dan Sperry is not the first do to dove magic and I'm sure some of his methods were created by people just sitting around playing with things as are some of the things we all do. If there's value to use it then there's value from the place it came from.

That being said, things are shifting. People all over the world can now share what they love, things their working on and ideas faster than ever. There are some who are doing this better than others and some want it just for personal validation. And all of those are fine. I think instead of trying to fight the fact that its happening we should be using our experience to help guide it in the direction its going to go with or with out us. I have met some amazing people, amazing magicians, technicians, thinkers, creators - all because of the internet and magic on the internet. In fact, the Magic Café is part of that history as well. So if this is okay and accepted, so then should other things that we may not understand fully. The people doing it now are the front runners, they are the mold that will be looked at for the next wave of them. So lets try to make it better instead of just bashing it.

Now its time for your thoughts!

Great post Xavior.

What is the difference between seeing magic live and via some media (in this case a computer screen)? Despite the profound answer of "it's different to experience an art live", I believe people are likely to see internet magic as "fake". It is really easy to say, "oh that's special effects" "that has to be a stooge".

Consider movies that clearly use special effects, people don't yell in the cinema that "oh please, that Titanic has to be fake, it's special effect!". A more relevant example, people don't look at Zach King's videos and call it fake. Well they are "fake". They are special effects and a hell lots of actors.

What's the difference between the two? The answer I come up with is that when people know so clearly that special effect, editing, or other "smokes" are in play, they just focus on something else. If those smoke work in favor of the presentation, then people not only forgive the smoke, but also praise it.

How to effectively erase people's perception of the "smoke" is what used to be the key here. Previous attempts include realistic settings (on the street), slow motion cameras, continuous shots, and so on. The one that's really clever is to shift the camera from the effect to people's reaction. Blaine's show does this beautifully. But this is a technique much like working out a sleight, there's always room for improvement. There seems no perfect answer.

Another technique in use is the performer's attitude. Ollie Mealing produces some of the best internet magic videos I have ever seen. Those are powerful magic able to transcend through the computer screen. What stands his materials out, I believe, is the genuine attitude and passion that leaks through while he's performing. The presentations are designed so that it makes no sense if the video is stooged. This is what I believe the best solution so far.

But what if? What if we embrace the "smoke"? What if we tell people we are using some sort of trickery already that is so blatant and obvious it shuts people up? "Theater" is one such trickery. But with the screen, it is hard to find a good combination. Marco Tempest comes to mind when I'm thinking about combining "smoke" with magic, but his material is probably too controversial that most magicians here don't see it as magic.

Maybe there's something we can work out in the future.

Mikelsc What you have touched on is the Fiction of magic. The fiction that magicians create and more importantly the role they play in this fiction. Everyone for the most part of our discussion knows magic is fake. Just like they know movies are fake. The difference is actors know how to keep the fiction alive and play the part they are meant to play in such fiction. They don't play the role of the Actor and narrator at the same time. Imagine in the movie star wars when Han Solo first sees Jaba. Imagine if he said "oh wow look at how real this suit is. doesn't it look real how they painted it and how they make it move?" Would the movie still be as memorable? I suggest that it would not.

We as magicians have a lot to learn about this as we tend to narrate as well as play a character in our fiction that we more often than not FAIL to create and Fail to continue throughout the performance.

I have a small problem with the fact that many of these social media performance do not do anything to necessarily help magic. All these "im gonna read your mind" tricks have a time and place, not every 3 days with a different reveal or addition problem or by popular guessing

I agree completely Chris and I'm not saying that the current social media trends are the solution. And I agree that they are a problem in some respect. But again this is where it's going to go. The issue is that a few of the guys are doing more for likes then magic and that's the real problem. They equate views and likes to magic and that is simply not the case.